Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

National Service

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether any manpower target for Her Majesty's Forces has been set by the Government; and for how long it is intended to continue National Service in its present form.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The manpower target for Her Majesty's Forces is set out in the Statement on Defence, 1952. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answers given to the right hon. Gentleman by the Prime Minister on Monday last.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but as the manpower target has been practically achieved and there is sufficient manpower available in order to complete the plans already laid on for the various divisions required, particularly in the Army, why is it necessary to continue National Service in its present form?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that if the period of National Service were reduced by six months that would result in a fall in the National Service men by 25 per cent., and that certainly is out of the question.

Mr. Shinwell: But why should that prove an obstacle? Surely the purpose is to provide as many trained men as is

required. That has been practically achieved. Surely the time has come for some modification of the plan, especially as the needs of agriculture are paramount, and men ought to be returned to the agriculture industry?

Mr. Birch: I am not very clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is advocating a reduction in the period of National Service or the exemption of certain special classes.

Mr. Shinwell: Both.

Mr. Birch: Well, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the arguments against special privileges for special classes, and I have no doubt he has deployed those arguments himself from this Box. He may also remember that just before the Whitsun Recess he committed himself to the view that it was impossible to defend Europe unless other countries accepted the same period of service as we have, and I hardly think it would be very encouraging to ask other countries to increase their period if we reduce ours.

Mr. T. Williams: As it is now recognised that agriculture is of the same importance as re-armament and the export trade, has not the time arrived when we ought to think again about calling up agricultural workers?

Mr. Birch: The importance of agriculture is realised, but the right hon. Gentleman should realise also that once we start giving a lot of special extensions we create difficulties, and unfairness is introduced which is resented by other classes.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is not it a fact that at the present time we have reached the peak, as a result of the schemes for National Service and recruiting to the Regular Army, and from now on there will be a falling off? Surely it is a question of looking ahead to see what will be the figures at the end of one year, and not of looking at the figures at this moment?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that hon. Members on the other side of the House have said time and again that, once we reached a substantial figure for the Regular Forces, six months' National Service would be sufficient?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that is so. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have had a good many alterations. He has supported 12 months, 18 months and two years. We cannot alter these things every five minutes.

Desertions (Proceedings)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence from what date the Service Departments ceased to take criminal proceedings against men who deserted from the Forces during the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Birch: No such date was fixed. Cases of desertion were dealt with on their merits.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not be better to have a precise and businesslike arrangement for this? Is it not a fact that there has been in operation without the knowledge or approval of the House a kind of shame-faced, half-hearted, unofficial and highly irregular amnesty in the case of men who deserted during the 1914–18 War, and at some stage or other the Government abandoned all further action in the matter?

Mr. Birch: It was announced by the last Government that the greatest possible degree of clemency would be shown, but I do not think that the statement of the hon. and gallant Member is accurate.

Retired Pay

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many retired officers of the three Services did not qualify for the last pension or retired pay increase by reason of the fact that their date of retirement was prior to September, 1950; and what would be the cost of granting them an increase proportionate to that granted to the officers who qualified because their retirement date was after September. 1950.

Mr. Birch: The number of officers of the three Services in receipt of retired pay who did not qualify for the increases announced in Cmd. 8323 is about 29,000. As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 30th June, it would cost annually about £2,100,000 to raise the rates of retired pay of these officers to the rates applicable to those who retired after 1st September, 1950

Mr. Marlowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that this discrimination in the rate of pension between people who retired before and after a certain date is a principle which is not accepted in any other form of Government service and that it is monstrously unfair? Has my hon. Friend represented to his noble Friend the general feeling in all quarters of the House the last time I raised this matter and, if he has not, will he do so, because he will certainly find trouble from this side of the House if he does not?

Mr. Birch: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, this matter has been raised very often in the House. My noble Friend received a Parliamentary delegation from all parties last Monday upon this subject when the case put by my hon. and learned Friend was forcibly expressed.

Mr. Marlowe: But will something be done about it?

Service Diets (Home-Grown Fruit)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to what extent home-grown fruit and British-manufactured preserves form part of the diet of officers and other ranks of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Birch: Home-grown fruit and preserves are included, to the greatest possible extent, in Service diets. Arrangements for the purchase of these commodities are the responsibility of the respective Service Departments.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind two exceptional circumstances? Will he instruct the Service Departments to take advantage of the large English fruit crop this year with a view to forward contracts and buying; and, secondly, will he give an assurance that no fruit of foreign origin will be bought until the English surplus fruit is cleared?

Mr. Birch: I am aware that there is a big fruit crop in this country this year. It is the practice of Service Departments to give a preference to home-grown fruit. On the other hand, my hon. Friend will realise that when units are stationed abroad it is not always possible to buy English fruit. They may have to exercise local purchase.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more milk would also be useful to improve the diet of the officers and men in the Army? Will he keep in mind the supply of milk before the supply of these preserves and fruit?

Mr. Simmons: Can the Minister say whether Tom Tickler's plum and apple, so beloved of the 1914–18 men, is still supplied to the other ranks while blackcurrant jam goes to the officers?

Mr. Birch: Not without notice.

Small Arms (Development)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make a further statement on the future development of the 280 rifle for general use in the British Army.

Mr. Birch: Agreement has now been reached in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the characteristics of an improved round of small arms ammunition. No round yet developed possesses these characteristics in full. Experimental work is therefore proceeding on the development of such a round and of weapons to fire it. The object is to produce a round and weapons which will be accepted as standard by all N.A.T.O countries.

Mr. Wyatt: Does this mean that the 280 rifle has now been abandoned altogether? Does it mean that we have given up our attempt to convert the American experts to the view that our rifle is superior to anything they can invent?

Mr. Birch: No, it does not mean that. Development work is still proceeding on the 280 rifle to see if it can be developed to produce a round of the hitting power required.

Mr. Shinwell: Does it not mean that the Government have not taken the advice of their expert military advisers?

Mr. Wyatt: How long will the experimental work take? Surely the Minister knows that it took several years to develop the 280 rifle and that if we are to start again now it will take five or six years?

Mr. Birch: It is hoped that it will be completed within the next 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS (HOSPITAL)

Captain Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made towards increasing the hospital facilities in the Falkland Islands.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): When an extension of the existing hospital in Port Stanley is completed, probably early next year, all foreseeable needs will be met. The new wing will comprise medical, surgical and maternity wards, private rooms, a children's ward, a theatre and X-ray block, a dental block and accommodation for ancillary services. It will be completely cut off from the original hospital which will be used for tuberculosis cases and will have its own staff and services.

Captain Ryder: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there will be sufficient staff to man this new block?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot be satisfied until I know. I think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE (PAY)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the scales of pay for the Civil Service in the Colonies, in the junior service, administrative, junior service, industrial, and the senior service, administrative, industrial and professional.

Mr. Lyttelton: It would be quite impossible for me to give the particulars asked for within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. There are nearly 40 separate administrations within my responsibility, each having its own public service. Within each public service there are all kinds of posts, each having its own scale of pay. Printed copies of the estimates of each administration, however, are available for consultation in the reference library of my Department.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him whether, if I put down a Question especially about the rates in Nigeria, he could give me the details, because I am concerned about the fact that there is


no cost of living index there and no increase according to the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should have to see what was the nature of the Question before I undertook to be able to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what arrangements have been made for the delegates, nominated by the Nyasaland Protectorate Council to meet him in London last April, to report back to the Council;
(2) if he will make a statement on the refusal of the Blantyre District Chief's Council to consider the White Paper proposals for federation until the delegates sent to London had reported back to the Nyasaland Protectorate Council.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Protectorate Council is due to meet in August and arrangements have been made for the delegates to address it at the beginning of the session.
The Blantyre District Council of Chiefs, after meeting on 18th and 19th June, declined to discuss the White Paper until the four delegates had reported to the full Protectorate Council. They therefore asked that a meeting of the Protectorate Council be convened as soon as possible, but as theirs was the only request of this nature it was not held to justify the inconvenience of calling a special session.

Mrs. White: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very long interval between the time when these delegates saw him in London, in April, and August when this representative body is to be called? Surely arrangements could have been made in these rather exceptional circumstances for the Protectorate Council to have met sooner?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot persuade the delegates to make a statement. I agree with the hon. Lady. I think that the delay is regrettable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (IRON-ORE AND DIAMONDS)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the non-disclosure of the value of exports of iron-ore and diamonds from Sierra Leone.

Mr. Lyttelton: Under an arrangement made in 1950 these figures are not published because they would reveal the trading position of individual commercial concerns.

Sir R. Acland: Would there be any harm in that? It is worth running a slight risk in order that we may know these most important figures.

Mr. Lyttelton: I might say to the hon. Baronet that I am not quite satisfied with this position. I am looking into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Federal Citizenship (Chinese and Indians)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese and Indians have applied for citizenship of Malaya; what are the conditions under which it is granted; and how many have been accepted.

Mr. Lyttelton: At the end of March certificates of citizenship had been issued to 299,907 Chinese and 31,505 Indians, Pakistanis and Ceylonese. I cannot say how many applications were awaiting consideration at that time.
The conditions under which Federal citizenship is granted to non-Malays on application are laid down in the Federation Agreement of 1948, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant clause. I should add that revised conditions will come into operation as soon as all the States have passed their new Nationality Bills.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information conveyed to him from Malaya is often in conflict with the information conveyed to me? Is he aware that the slowness in dealing with applications for citizenship is causing the applications to pile up in the offices? Will he ask that these applications should be dealt with more expeditiously?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should think that it is possible that the hon. Member's information may conflict with mine, but I must rely upon official sources.

Employees' Provident Fund.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the Employees' Provident Fund which came into operation in the Federation of Malaya on 1st July, if he will state the contributions paid and the benefits to be received; and what sections of workers were excluded.

Mr. Lyttelton: Employees' contributions average about 5 per cent. of wages; the employer pays an equal amount. All contributions, with accrued interest, can be withdrawn as a lump sum at the age of 55 or in other specified circumstances. Workers covered by approved schemes, or earning more than $400 or less than $10 a month, or employed in very small concerns, are excluded.

Mr. Awbery: May I ask the Minister if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the main points of the scheme now put into operation, and, if he cannot do that, will he have some copies placed in the Library, in order that hon. Members may examine it and compare it with schemes in operation in this country?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid the comparison will not be very fruitful, because this is a special kind of scheme, but, if the hon. Member wishes, I will circulate some details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Awbery: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (FISH MARKETING BOARD)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement in regard to the Hong Kong Fish Marketing Board, indicating what proportion of their fishermen own their boats and what proportion have mortgages through debt; and what plans have been considered for the organisation of retail co-operative shops for the selling of the fish and of a co-operative wholesale department for the export of the fish.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir; 95–98 per cent. of all fishing vessels based on Hong Kong are owner-operated, and in the last six years only two owners are known to have mortgaged their boats. Co-operative retail shops have been considered, but they would be unlikely to succeed in competition with numerous family concerns operating on a low margin of profit and conducting much of their business on credit. The Fish Marketing Board, operating on co-operative lines, now possesses a mechanical fish drier and intends to develop the export of dried fish.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister feel satisfied that the Marketing Board is realising all the hopes that were reposed in it when it was formed?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think probably not, because the field in which the co-operative Marketing Board can operate is, as my answer indicates, rather limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — N. RHODESIA (TRADE UNION OFFICER)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Northern Rhodesian Government proposes to station the recently appointed trade union officer in Lusaka.

Mr. Lyttelton: No appointment has yet been made of a specialist trade union officer to Lusaka.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of locating the new officer in the Copper Belt, where the officer who recently resigned did so much good work?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am in communication with the Government of Northern Rhodesia on this point. So far, they have only told me that there are other well-established unions with which they wish to keep in touch. The matter is not yet settled, and I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (NATURALISATION)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that none of the 135 applicants for naturalisation from non-English speaking citizens of Singapore made since October,


1951, has yet been granted that this delay has been caused by his Department in London; and whether he will speed up the process of dealing with these applications.

Mr. Lyttelton: Since the 1st October, 1951, only 24 certificates of naturalisation for non-English speaking Chinese have been submitted for my approval. I have approved 14 of these, leaving 10 still outstanding. I am satisfied that no undue delay in handling these cases occurs in my Department.

Mr. Wyatt: In that case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the Singapore Legislative Council, the member who asked about this was given exactly the same information as is now recorded on the Order Paper, and that the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, who is a colonial official, said that delays had occurred at the Colonial Office in London in dealing with naturalisation requests from all the Colonies? Should not the right hon. Gentleman have some better co-ordination between his officials and officials in Singapore?

Mr. Lyttelton: The information of the hon. Gentleman, I think, has been garbled. In fact, there were 137 applications for naturalisation, not all from non-English speaking citizens, which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and that is where confusion has arisen.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman merely trying to evade the point on a technical quibble? Is it not a fact that there have been serious delays in granting these applications, and is not this entirely against the interests of the whole arrangement, which is to make people think they are citizens of Malaya and Singapore?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman's information is incorrect. There were 24 applications from non-English speaking Chinese since October, of which 14 have been granted and 10 are still outstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (WEMURU TRIBE)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached by the Trusteeship Council on the appeal by the

Wemuru against eviction from their land in Tanganyika.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Council considered this petition yesterday, but I have not yet received a complete report on their proceedings.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reports in the Press today that, by eight votes to one, the Resolution of the New Zealand delegate was adopted to the effect that, whilst recognising the transference of the tribes was desirable as a planning measure, and urging the tribe to accept the compensation offered in new land and financial aid, criticised the process of forcible eviction, and recommended that no land in Tanganyika be alienated except with the clearly expressed collective consent of the indigenous inhabitants; and, in consequence of that resolution, will he see that in trusteeship territories in future no tribes are evicted against the will of the people?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman apparently has a greater desire to impart information than to receive it. I received a telegram only this morning, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to say more until I have studied it more closely.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, in the "New York Herald-Tribune," it is stated that the New Zealand resolution which was adopted is in the strongest terms ever used—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for what an American newspaper has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dartmouth Entrants

Dr. King: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many boys from secondary grammar schools were in the first 31 of the 98 candidates who passed the recent qualifying written examination for Dartmouth.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mt. J. P. L. Thomas): Thirteen, Sir.

Dr. King: Is the First Lord aware that, despite the fact that 13 grammar school boys were in the first 31 of the written


examination, only seven grammar school boys were selected by the interviewing authority?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that, but the figures in this particular case will not differ very much between the secondary grammar school and the independent and direct grant schools.

Dr. King: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the 54 boys from grammar schools and how many of the 44 boys from independent and direct grant schools, who passed the recent qualifying written examination for Dartmouth were rejected on medical grounds.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Twelve and seven respectively were found medically unfit for entry in any branch.

Dr. King: Do the Minister's figures show on what grounds this discrimination took place against grammar school boys? Will he explain how it is that, out of 54 grammar school boys who passed the written examination, only seven were selected by the interviewing body, whereas out of 44 public school boys, 24 were selected by the interviewing body?

Mr. Thomas: I think the latter figure is not 44, but 37, but the fact remains that I have attended one of these interviewing boards, and I can say that they are very fairly conducted. The answer simply is that the others did not come up to the qualities expected or needed.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the composition of the interviewing board?

Mr. Thomas: The interviewing board is set up in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and consists of representatives of the Admiralty, with the Judge Advocate as Chairman, representatives of the Ministry of Education, of the local education authorities, and also representatives from Scotland. I think there are 13 in all.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, when I asked a similar question of his predecessor in regard to grammar school boys, I was told that it was not the practice of the Government to interfere with the

decisions of the selection board? Is that still the practice of the Government?

Mr. Thomas: Our practice on this point is very similar to that of our predecessors.

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the members of the interviewing board were themselves educated at public schools, and may not that explain the preference?

Mr. Thomas: The interviewing board is not always the same. Ft changes very frequently, and I cannot possible tell how many of the members received their education at public schools.

Dr. King: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what qualities were judged at the recent selection interviews for Dartmouth.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Intelligence, common sense, character and personality.

Dr. King: Since these are constant qualities emerging regularly in grammar school boys, as in public school boys, will the Minister attempt to explain why, whereas in the past three years, the proportion of grammar school boys who passed the written examination and satisfied the interviewing board was one in four, as against one in two for public school boys, since the Government have taken office, the proportion has now dropped to one in seven selected from grammar school boys? Does he realise that we want the best boys to be officers, whether they are educated at grammar schools or at public schools, and that the retrogression from the policy of the late Government in opening the officer class to all our children is a very bad change?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interviewing board, which he criticises on this occasion, was set up by our predecessors and is the same as it was under them and that these tests are exactly the same. I must ask the House to await the report of the very important and high-powered Committee on this particular problem, but I gave a pledge to the House on the Navy Estimates, and I repeat it now, that we are determined to see that a fair chance is given to all boys, whatever their educational background, who have the qualities and qualifications required of a future naval officer.

Mr. W. J. Edwards: The first Lord just said that the situation today with regard to interviews is almost identical with that under the previous Government. Would he be good enough to say what he means by "almost identical," and what change has taken place in the procedure adopted by the previous Government?

Mr. Thomas: If I said "almost identical," I withdraw the "almost" because in every single case I think the members of the board are the same as under our predecessors. There may have been a change of one member, but I think that at the moment the board is the same as it was under our predecessors.

Mr. Jay: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say just now that the members of the board were constantly changing? How, then, can it be identical?

Mr. Thomas: The board is constantly changing, but the present board about which the hon. Member asked happens to be the same board which sat under the previous Government.

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the selection board which picked Ministers in the last Government had any undue preference for public school boys?

Victualling (Home-Grown Fruit)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what preference is given to home-grown fruit and British-manufactured fruit preserves when victualling Her Majesty's ships.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Fresh fruits are obtained by Her Majesty's ships as required and available locally. Some supplies of tinned fruits and jams, particularly on stations abroad, are necessarily obtained from Commonwealth or foreign sources, but the greater proportion consists of items of British produce.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to the victualling of ships serving in home waters, that in Herefordshire and Worcestershire particularly we have the largest fruit crop in living memory? Might it not be a good thing if the Royal Navy were given an opportunity to take advantage of these luscious fruits?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the fruit crop in Herefordshire during the present season. On the other hand, I am broad-minded enough to bear in mind the needs of all the fruit-growing areas.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in this context "fruit" means plums, and will he give an assurance that the Royal Navy will not be inundated with plums to the point of nausea, which is what happened in the First World War regarding all branches of the Services?

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind also the particular advantage of the Victoria plums grown in the Clyde Valley?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING CONSTRUCTION

Mr. F. Willey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why less merchant shipping has been completed and laid down this year than in the corresponding period last year.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Twenty-eight thousand gross tons more of merchant shipping were completed in the first six months of 1952 than in the corresponding period in 1951. There was, however, a slight fall in the number of actual ships completed. The corresponding figures for shipping laid down show a fall of 55,000 gross tons. I should point out, however, that shipbuilding is an industry with a relatively long production cycle, and a comparison of completions and tonnage laid down over so short a period as six months is not a reliable guide to production trends.

Mr. Willey: Is the First Lord aware that the "Lloyds Returns" issued this morning show that the tonnage of merchant shipping laid down in the last quarter is the lowest for any quarter since the end of the war? More serious still, is he aware that this represents only 19 per cent. of the tonnage of merchant shipping laid down in the world during that quarter, and is a very serious threat to one of our major industries?

Mr. Thomas: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, there is no direct relationship between tonnage completed and keels


laid down during particular periods, particularly so short a period as that about which he asked.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there has been no cessation of shipbuilding, so far as cargo liners and similar vessels are concerned it is predicted that there is going to be a serious shortage in tramp shipping—that is the opinion of experts in the shipping industry—and will he give his attention to that matter?

Mr. Thomas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to the matter, but it is a different question from the one which appears on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Advisory Council

Mr. Erroll: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what changes have been made in the composition of the Post Office Advisory Council since 1st January, 1952.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Lady Megan Lloyd George, Mr. Connolly Gage, M.P. and Mr. M. K. Macmillan, M.P., have left the Council, and Mrs. Eveline Hill, M.P., Mr. Charles Hayward and Mr. William Ross, M.P., have joined it. My noble Friend has in mind the appointment of one or two additional members.

Mr. Erroll: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter with his noble Friend, will he take into account the advisability of appointing one or two ordinary people who can represent the point of view of the ordinary small user of postal facilities?

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the Minister say whether in the proposed addition there will be representatives of the staffs in the Post Office in order that their collective experience will be available to the Postmaster-General in the formulative stage of his policy?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot yet say what will be the qualification of the additional members invited to join the Council.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to express a view as to the desirability of some representatives of the staffs being among the additional members to this Advisory Council.

Air Transport Rates

Mr. Beswick: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to end the anomalous position under which British European Airways Corporation receive 118.5 pence per short ton statute mile, whilst British Overseas Airways Corporation, though also paid below the international rate, receive between 164 and 217 pence per short ton of mail carried.

Mr. Gammans: I am not aware of any substantial change in circumstances, since the rates were established in 1950 and 1951 by the late Government, that would justify their review at present.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there were adjustments during the period of office of the late Government and that it was expected that these adjustments would continue to be made from time to time? In view of the fact that technical developments now mean that it is cheaper to carry mail over a long haul than over a short haul, is not the hon. Gentleman capable of continuing the good work of his predecessor?

Mr. Gammans: No circumstances have arisen since these rates were last fixed that would justify any substantial alterations in the present rates.

Mr. Beswick: When the hon. Gentleman says "substantial alterations," does that mean that he is contemplating some minor alterations?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

New Transmitter, Alexandra Palace

Mr. Grey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the decision to erect the new transmitter ordered by the British Broadcasting Corporation at Alexandra Palace, to act as a standby, has caused dissatisfaction to the people of the north-east; and whether, in view of this, he will endeavour to have this decision reconsidered.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 9th April. The difficulty of establishing a television service from Pontop Pike does not lie in the provision of a low-power transmitter.


Other capital investment would be involved, such as a suitable building, a high mast and other equipment.

Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to erect this new transmitter at Alexandra Palace as a standby makes absolute nonsense of the arguments used that re-armament would prevent work on the one at Pontop Pike? Would the hon. Gentleman say what he meant in a letter which he sent me on 19th May, which states:
The B.B.C. tells me that there is no truth in the report of new transmitters being on order to replace the equipment in use at Alexandra Palace station. The Corporation's current lease of Alexandra Palace does not expire until 1956, and new transmitters would not be needed before that date at the earliest.
How does the hon. Gentleman square that statement with what the B.B.C. are now doing at Alexandra Palace?

Mr. Gammans: It is quite easy to square that. The answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman refers to the high-power transmitter at Alexandra Palace, whereas the Question he has put on the Order Paper refers to the low-power transmitter.

Mr. Profumo: Could my hon. Friend say how much more equipment is going to be ordered by the B.B.C. merely to he held in reserve? Is he aware that there are already four low-power transmitters which are only used as reserves and that if they were used in the rest of the country the coverage could be extended more speedily? Can he say whether the B.B.C. ever intend to extend their coverage by the use of these transmitters, or whether they propose to use them only as reserves?

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry that the House has not followed my original answer. The trouble is not in the transmitter alone. Other buildings, roads and masts provide the chief difficulties.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the Government, apparently, are going to reduce the rate of re-armament and, that being so, could he not reconsider the position of this new transmitter?

Mr. Gammans: If what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, the additional equipment required will be needed for export and not for the home market.

Welsh National Eisteddfod

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what mechanical or technical difficulties prevent the opening of the Wenvoe television station in time to transmit currently a film of the Welsh National Eisteddfod.

Mr. Gammans: This is a matter for the B.B.C., but the Corporation informs me that it cannot undertake to open before the 15th August because time is required for testing and other preparatory work. I am glad to say, however, that the Corporation has made arrangements for a film of the Eisteddfod to be transmitted from Wenvoe on 16th August.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the Welsh people are very disappointed with the attitude of the B.B.C. on this question and that they feel that he has not shown much energy in trying to hurry them up? Is he further aware that tests have been conducted already at Wenvoe, that they are highly successful and we see no reason why, with a little energy and enterprise, the Eisteddfod should not be televised concurrently with the event?

Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Member knows that if it had been possible to open the station at Wenvoe before 15th August it would not have been feasible to have televised the Eisteddford direct, for it would have cost a very considerable sum of money and would have meant the erection of a number of stations on the hills between Aberystwyth and Wenvoe.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is truly a very widespread desire in Wales that the broadcasts of the National Eisteddfod of Wales, as the premier national cultural festival of the Principality, should be synchronised with the event? Is he aware that there have been reports that there are absolutely no technical barriers to this being done and that it has been reported in the national newspaper of Wales that a prominent member of the B.B.C. staff admitted that there was no technical barrier?

Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that I cannot comment on those reports. I know that it would have pleased all hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies if it had been possible to open the station


earlier, and I am assured by the B.B.C. that, much as they have tried, it is not technically possible to do so.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment before the Recess, because I feel that if the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Paris Broadcasts (Relay Stations)

Mr. Grey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what additional stations were needed to provide for the exchange relays now taking place for the benefit of viewers in France and the south of England.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. inform me that four temporary point-to-point relay stations were brought into service to convey the television programmes from Paris to London. Two were in France and two in the south of England. The equipment was not specially purchased for this purpose but was that normally used for outside broadcast purposes and, since the end of the series of Paris programmes, it has been dismantled in readiness for use on other outside broadcasts.

Mr. Grey: Will the hon. Gentleman let the House know the capital cost of this project?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will certainly give him the information.

Mr. D. Jones: In view of the Minister's reply to this Question, what is wrong with using that equipment to broadcast the National Eisteddfod from Wenvoe Station?

Mr. Gammans: There are two reasons. The first is that the B.B.C. do not consider that the station at Wenvoe will be ready before 15th August, and the second is that I understand that a different kind of equipment would be required for the link.

Suppressors (Motor Cars)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he proposes to produce a Regulation requiring motor cars to have suppressors to prevent interference with television reception.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend hopes to make a Regulation covering new motor cars early next Session.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that a Bill enabling these Regulations to be made was passed some years ago and my hon. Friend promised some months ago to introduce a Regulation shortly, can my hon. Friend say what is causing this delay? Would he confirm that this Regulation will impose an obligation and will not rely in any way on a voluntary system?

Mr. Gammans: It will certainly impose an obligation in the case of new motor cars.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say why it is not proposed to apply it to existing motor cars?

Mr. Gammans: Up to now this Government and their predecessors have wished to see to what extent this can be carried out voluntarily. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that it has been pretty successful and that the number of suppressors now distributed exceed 300,000 a month.

Stockholm Conference

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what were the objectives of the British delegation to the Stockholm Radio Conference; how far those objectives were achieved; and if he will publish a White Paper containing the terms of the Agreement.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for what reasons the United Kingdom delegates at the Stockholm Conference reserved complete freedom with regard to the use of frequencies in Bands II and III, after claiming and getting certain assignments in these bands.

Mr. Gammans: The objectives of the British delegation to the Stockholm Conference were to reach the fullest possible measure of agreement with certain reservations on the allocation of three specified bands discussed at the Conference. Our delegation agreed to the frequencies allotted to us in Band I, which include the high and low powered television stations of the B.B.C. In Bands II and III a large number of frequencies were allotted to us, but it was essential that we should reserve complete freedom


until we had decided upon plans for developing V.H.F. sound and television broadcasting, including the type of modulation for sound broadcasting.
It is not proposed to issue a White Paper, but I will arrange for a copy of the Agreement to be placed in the Library of the House when printed copies are available.

Mr. Edwards: Is not this a rather astonishing doctrine? A delegation is sent to Stockholm to obtain certain concessions. We obtain those concessions and, having got them to preserve our position in television, we then reserve complete freedom to interfere with other people's concessions. Is not this a really bad way of doing things?

Mr. Gammans: It would be quite impossible for us to take any other attitude until we have come to a decision ourselves on the form of modulation which we will use for V.H.F. sound broadcasting and other technical questions on television.

Mr. Edwards: How can we complain of Russia not accepting this agreement when we ourselves get what we want and in addition say we reserve complete freedom to take anybody else's concession?

Mr. Gammans: The Conference completely understood our position in this matter.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what reasons were given by the Iron Curtain countries for not signing the Stockholm Wavelength Agreement after having taken part in the Conference which arrived at the Agreement.

Mr. Gammans: The main reasons given were that the plans prepared by the Conference had no adequate technical basis and created unequal conditions for the countries in the European Area.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that our conduct in negotiations was above reproach? In addition to the copy of the Agreement which he has promised to place in the Library, will he furnish hon. Members with some kind of report of the actual negotiations which took place?

Mr. Gammans: I shall be pleased to furnish the House with a copy of the statement put forward by the Russians which explains their attitude.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what further steps he proposes to take to prevent jamming of sound and television broadcasting from this country, consequent upon the failure of Portugal, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and certain Eastern European countries to sign the Stockholm Wavelength Agreement

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Member refers to deliberate jamming of B.B.C. broadcasts directed to certain countries, the problem is not affected by the discussions at the recent Stockholm Conference as these broadcasts are operated on wavelengths outside the bands considered at Stockholm. If he has in mind interference to our own internal broadcasting services, the fact that certain countries did not sign at Stockholm does not necessarily mean that they will interfere with their neighbours.

Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the jamming which is taking place at the moment, may I ask the Minister whether or not he has made any approach, or is intending to make any approach, with a view to preventing this interference?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that when continuous jamming takes place on a wavelength the strongest representations are made by us to the country concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosks, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will now make a statement with regard to the provision of telephone kiosks on the Stocking Farm Estate, Leicester.

Mr. Gammans: Two additional kiosks will be provided on this estate by the end of this month.

Mr. Janner: Can the Minister say, if not exactly, about when they are likely to be available for use?

Mr. Gammans: There are only another eight days before the end of this month.

Public Booths (Call Limits)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what limit, under his regulations, is placed on the length of time an individual may occupy a public telephone booth when engaged upon a local or trunk call.

Mr. Gammans: No one, as a matter of right, is entitled to continue a call for more than three minutes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend take an assurance from me that recently I had to wait 25 minutes outside a 'phone box? Would he consider reposting inside telephone boxes a notice which, as far as I can recall, used to be displayed there always requesting people to limit their calls to six minutes at the most?

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry about my hon. Friend's experience, but he must blame the occupant of the box and not the Post Office

Poles (Advertisements)

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what are the regulations concerning the use of telephone poles for advertising; and what recent prosecutions there have been for the infringement of these regulations.

Mr. Gammans: Fixing advertisements, notices, etc., on telephone poles without authority is prohibited by Section 62 of the Post Office Act, 1908. There have been no recent prosecutions for offences against this Section.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 5th July last there was a political meeting held at Portishead, in Somerset, and that this meeting, which was attended by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), was advertised on a telegraph pole close to Failand?

Mr. Gammans: I am aware of that incident and, as is normal in cases of this sort, a letter was sent by the local regional director of the Post Office to the secretary of the Labour Party. A reply was received giving an assurance that this poster was not affixed by the party and offering to help in any way they could to remove it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that it was a very successful meeting?

Changed Numbers

Mr. Russell: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General approximately what proportion of telephone subscribers numbers are changed in a year without changing their addresses.

Mr. Gammans: I regret the information is not available, but I can assure my hon. Friend that changes of subscribers' telephone numbers are avoided as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RE-ARMAMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee to make plans for the problems that will arise when the re-armament programme is completed, and to deal especially with the conversion of the engineering industry from war to peace production, the absorption by industry of the 500,000 men who will be released from the services, and the orderly marketing of strategic stock piles of raw materials, whose prices are likely to fall appreciably.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): No, Sir. I do not think the time has come to set up such a Committee. It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look farther than you can see.

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that he does not think that these problems are likely to arise, or that he feels that they are too far ahead and too difficult to be dealt with?

The Prime Minister: I think that is rather a difficult question to answer on the spur of the moment. I am sure that we all look forward to a time when the measures proposed by my hon. Friend will come within the area of practical politics.

Mr. Jay: Is not this a very important question? Cannot the Prime Minister at least assure us that the relevant Departments are giving some preliminary thought to it?

The Prime Minister: They are giving their full attention to this and to many other topics.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Prime Minister again whether, in view of the fact that the American Government have announced that in their opinion rearmament is likely to be ended by next year and that our re-armament should be ended at about the same period, these problems ought not now to be looked at?

The Prime Minister: There are different opinions on this subject. I think I saw a statement by the late Foreign Secretary suggesting that the cold war might continue for 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Jay: Would we be right in inferring from the Prime Minister's answer that he himself has given no thought to this question?

The Prime Minister: That would be rather a hazardous assumption on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who has not, so far as I am aware, at any time in his Parliamentary career distinguished himself for foresight.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Filey Bay Firing Range

Mr. Spearman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air on how many occasions the Filey Bay air-to-air practice firing range has been used by the Royal Air Force since 14th December, 1951, the date on which his Department's application to use the range was granted.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): None, Sir.

Mr. Spearman: Does my hon. Friend intend to retain the right to use this range, as it is not being used?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir.

Low Flying, Norwich

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that recent instances of low flying and the taking off and landing of aircraft very near to built-up areas in the Hellesdon, Catton and other districts close to Norwich, have caused considerable disturbance and anxiety to residents in those neighbourhoods, especially to the sick and to children; and if he will have an immediate investigation made with a view to preventing a recurrence or at least ensuring a lessening of the number of these incidents.

Mr. Ward: As I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend in my letter of 27th June, I have every sympathy with the residents in this area. The training of our fighter pilots is essential to the defence of this country, however, and short of closing the airfield at Horsham St. Faith, there is no way of preventing low flying there.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the people of Norfolk are very conscious of the vital need for this flying training and are indeed grateful to these young men who are risking and unhappily often losing their lives in their efforts to be trained for our defence; but, in regard to this particular aerodrome, is it not a fact that in the flying funnel there are schools containing some 2,000 children and a great deal is to be said for extending the runways away from the city altogether?

Mr. Ward: Yes, but there is no question of extending the runways towards the city.

Mr. Paton: Is the Minister aware that this is a long-standing danger and nuisance? Must the people of Norwich wait until there is some dreadful accident involving the lives of its citizens before something is done to stop this?

Mr. Ward: We have every possible sympathy with the inhabitants of Norwich, but Horsham St. Faith is a highly important tactical and strategical airfield necessary to the defence of England, and the low flying there is caused by aircraft taking off and landing, which cannot be avoided.

Airfields (Built-up Areas)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to recent incidents where aircraft have crashed on or near to built-up areas, and having regard to the number of air stations which are situated within close range of large cities and other centres of population, and the dangers inseparable from taking off and landing, he will now review the siting of these particular stations with a view, where possible, to moving them away to airfield sites remote from towns and cities, many of which are at present lying derelict.

Mr. Ward: I very much regret that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is operationally impracticable. Those airfields which are not now being used or developed are either unsuitable by modern standards or are so situated that they would not meet operational needs.

Brigadier Medlicott: Was it not rather unfortunate that, at the end of the war when it was possible to make decisions in these matters, many of the airfields quite close to great built-up areas were retained and other airfields in the open country were allowed to become disused?

Mr. Ward: There are many factors which enter into the choice of an airfield. We have looked very carefully at all of them, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the airfields which remain derelict remain so because they are either in the wrong places as far as the R.A.F. is concerned or are unsuitable for rehabilitation.

Mr. Paton: Is it not a fact that the reason why these airfields in Norfolk cannot be used instead of the aerodrome at St. Faiths is simply that the Treasury will not face the cost? Are we to balance the cost to the Treasury against the possible loss of life in Norwich?

Mr. Ward: That is not the case. The sort of factors which are taken into consideration are technical ones, such as the contours of the land, the suitability of the subsoil and obstructions to flying approaches.

Agriculture Courses

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will institute pre-release courses in agriculture for National Service men in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. Facilities are provided to enable National Service men to study agriculture in their spare time throughout their period of service.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the Under-Secretary not agree that considerable checks have been placed on the development of agriculture by the continued call-up of agricultural workers? Will he do something to check the stoppage which is going on by giving National Service men an opportunity to study agriculture if they so wish?

Mr. Ward: I cannot say anything about the call-up of agricultural workers. National Service men are already free to study agriculture in their spare time. They are free to attend local educational classes; facilities are made available to them for free travel and, if necessary, they can take the correspondence course which is provided by the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the manpower needs of the Royal Air Force have been largely met, would it not be much more desirable to retain these agricultural workers in their proper sphere in the agricultural industry and release them at once?

Mr. Ward: The reinstatement rights of National Service men are fully safeguarded by statute, but the Services cannot be expected to equip them in working hours for civil life.

Major Lloyd: Would my hon. Friend assure the House that in such courses the opportunity will be taken for lectures to be given on how not to make losses on things like groundnuts?

EGYPT (SITUATION)

Mr. C. R. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about recent developments in Egypt, in view of the important negotiations now being carried on with that country.

The Prime Minister: My information is still incomplete and I shall confine myself to the facts as they would appear from information available. I am informed that the Egyptian Army, led by a group of officers who were dissatisfied with existing conditions, took over control in Cairo in the course of last night. Order is being maintained and the police are apparently obeying the orders of this group. The Army in Alexandria are, according to the information which I have at present, unaffected and members of the new Egyptian Government headed by Hilaly Pasha have made contact with the Army leaders. As far as can be seen there is at present no risk to British lives or property.
In a broadcast from Cairo this morning Major-General Mohammed Neguib,


who according to news reports has declared himself Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, has given assurances to foreign residents that their lives and property will be safeguarded and that the Army will make itself responsible for them.

PERSIAN OIL (SALE)

Mr. F. Maclean: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the ruling given by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, he will make a statement regarding the Government's attitude to the disposal of oil from the wells and refineries of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear on many occasions that they regard products of the oil industry in South Persia as the property of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and that all practical steps will be taken to prevent any attempt on the part of the Persian Government to dispose of this oil in any manner to third parties. The fact that the International Court of Justice has ruled that it itself is not competent to adjudicate upon the claim which Her Majesty's Government brought before it merely means that the Court cannot pronounce on the merits of the claim one way or the other. It does not in any way affect the validity of the claim, nor does it affect the undoubted right of Her Majesty's Government to continue to support one of its nationals, namely the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, in its attempts to secure satisfaction for the wrong it has suffered.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that whatever the technical, legal position, Her Majesty's Government have the right and the duty to protect legitimate British interests in Iran or anywhere else, and will he give the House an assurance that they will avail themselves of that right and perform that duty whatever the ruling of the International Court?

The Prime Minister: I think all the points mentioned in that supplementary were fully comprised in the original answer which I gave.

Mr. A. Henderson: Arising from the last question, may I ask the Prime

Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to give the good example which they have given in the past by bearing in mind the existence of the United Nations and the entitlement of Her Majesty's Government, if they so decide, to take this matter before the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: This is raising wide issues on a supplementary question, and I do not think I wish today to add to the statement I have already made to the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has the Prime Minister any information about contracts made by the Persian Government with consumers of oil in other countries?

The Prime Minister: I have no information which I could impart to the House today. If a Question were placed on the Paper, full consideration would be given as to how full a statement could be made to the House upon the subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): As hon. Members will be aware, I moved to report Progress at two o'clock this morning, as it was evident that a handful of Socialist Members, who then appeared—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to describe hon. Members of this House as "Socialist Members," ignoring the proper designation of "honourable Members"?

Mr. Speaker: It is always customary to prefix the title "honourable."

Mr. Crookshank: Hon. and Socialist Members—is that it? It is quite clear to whom I refer. They then appeared to constitute the Opposition and were bent on prolonging proceedings to a very late hour, or perhaps I should say a very early hour, on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, a Measure which has been regarded as uncontentious—if not, indeed, formal. The result of the Division was 105 to 20. The remainder of that Bill—we got only Clause 1—as well as other necessary Government business, is, therefore down for today, in addition—

Mr. Harold Davies: It is due to the right hon. Gentleman's own muddle.

Mr. Crookshank: —to the business already announced; and with good will it can be disposed of. As Leader of the House I have taken note—[Interruption]—of the determination—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Crookshank: —of some hon. Members opposite to delay Government business and to keep a necessarily large number of Government supporters sitting up until the small hours. Hon. Members have their duties to perform, but undue debate on matters which are usually treated as formal or uncontentious must lead, particularly at this very late period of the Session, to a situation which affects every hon. Member of this House.
Her Majesty's Government have been examining means by which the business can be completed and the House rise before August Bank Holiday; which, I am sure, is desired by the great majority of the House and could be done without the Opposition sacrificing any of their undoubted rights of debate. We shall this evening get as far as we can with the business before us, but what we have not completed by a reasonable hour will have to be postponed to another day, with the inevitable result that the House may have to sit on August Bank Holiday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and perhaps beyond.
This is simply a plain statement of cause and effect. The discussions which are taking place between my right hon. Friend, the Government Chief Whip, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition Chief Whip, could mean a very satisfactory arrangement. Unfortunately, the actions of some hon. Members opposite do not seem to bear any relation to the intentions and labours of the usual channels, whose co-operation is essential to the dignity and smooth working of the House.

Mr. Attlee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from an inquiry I have made I gather that the whole matter could have been settled had it been properly handled by those in charge on the Treasury Bench? Is he also aware that a business statement has seldom, in my recollection, been used for making a partisan attack of this kind in entirely unbecoming terms? May I also ask him whether he recalls the numerous occasions during the last six and a half years

on which five or six Members on the other side kept the House night after night?

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have been the first to recollect that late night Sittings in the last Parliament on Prayers were not initiated by the Opposition Front Bench as such; they were initiated by Private Members; whereas last night's business was, of course, in the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

Mr. Attlee: I understood that the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's complaint was that these things might have been settled through the usual channels, and that the trouble was due to certain other Members on the back benches. Now he is claiming that all the trouble when we were the Government, and from the other side, was due to the back benches.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. As one of the Members of last night's "Night Brigade," may I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? Is it in order for the Leader of the House to cast a reflection upon the manner in which the Chairman conducted the business in the Chamber last night, by imputing or inferring that he allowed Members of the Opposition deliberately to waste the time of the Committee without calling them to order?

Mr. Speaker: I heard no imputation against the occupant of the Chair last night.

Mr. Thomas: I think it was implied.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is hound by Rules, as hon. Members are—

Mr. Thomas: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: —and it is sometimes very difficult for the Chair in a situation of that kind.

Mr. Foot: Is the Leader of the House aware, as the rest of the House is aware, that the business of the House has been getting into greater and greater difficulties over the past several months, and that we have had a series of occasions on which important business has been set down for 10 o'clock that has kept us up late—up to 2 o'clock last night?


Does he not yet realise that these difficulties are due to his gross incompetence as Leader of the House?

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking—

Mr. Snow: He is not listening.

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to attend tonight's debate on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill? In which case he will have an opportunity of knowing that the difficulty which arose last night was due to his hon. Friend failing to have entered the accounts of the Isle of Man upon which the Bill was based, and failing to have available the Resolutions of the Tynwald upon which, it was said, the matter was based? Will he, therefore, see that before we consider the matter tonight there will be available in the Library the statement of the funds of the Isle of Man upon which the Bill is based—the accounts upon which these taxes are said to be based—and the Resolutions of the Tynwald by which, it is said, the Government are bound?

Mr. Speaker: This is not the occasion for a speech on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. Sir Herbert Williams.

Sir H. Williams: Sir H. Williams rose—

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. Naturally, I gave way to you, Mr. Speaker, without concluding the other part of my question. What I was saying was in an interrogative form, dealing with business generally. I was going on—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can have only one point of order at a time. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was rising to a point of order?

Mr. Bing: I was merely saying that I naturally gave way to you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I cannot hear the hon. and learned Gentleman further.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition is totally unfamiliar with what happened last night? [HON. MEMBERS: "So are you."] No. In regard to the

allegation about prolonging proceedings in the last Parliament on Prayers, that happened on only one occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It happened on only one occasion, and on that occasion the proceedings were prolonged entirely due to the fact that no hon. Member on our side was permitted to make a speech unobstructed for more than two minutes at a time because of the opposition created by disorderly hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this. There is no Question before the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was alluded to.

Mr. Ede: As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to me I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement. I sat, as is my custom, in the Chamber during the greater part of the evening—I think continuously from 10 o'clock onwards. I took no part in the discussion until the right hon. Gentleman came in and moved to report Progress and in the course of his remarks alluded to me. I do not know what he means by the allusion he has made to me today.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry if I have offended the right hon. Gentleman, but, of course, he was here, and, he being the most senior Member of the Opposition then present, I naturally assumed that he was in charge of the Opposition's affairs. If I ascribed to him an honour which he was not then enjoying, I am sorry. I again repeat that there is no relationship whatsoever between the flow of the debate yesterday and what may have happened in the previous Parliament. I again say that Prayers were then initiated by Private Members. I admit that there was an occasion on which there was extended debate on the Finance Bill. It resulted in extra time being given by the Government. This year the official Opposition had no need to do anything of that sort, because we conceded the time before it ever started.

Mr. Ede: I have made a personal explanation. I gathered, when the right hon. Gentleman rose, that he possibly desired to make a further personal statement on that. I understood that a personal statement ought to be of an entirely uncontroversial nature. I have


listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I take it whence it comes—as the old woman said who was walking across the common when a donkey kicked her.

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better stop this here.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Civil List Bill, the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 232.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Drewe, C.
Lambton, Viscount


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Erroll, F. J.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Finlay, Graeme
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.


Baker, P. A. D.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Banks, Col. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Gage, C. H.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Low, A. R. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Godber, J. B.
McCallum, Major D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Birch, Nigel
Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, A. J.


Black, C. W.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bowen, E. R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Bullard, D. G.
Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Butcher, H. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, A. H. E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Cole, Norman
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Oakshott, H. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Odey, G. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Partridge, E.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, James (Scoutstoun)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Jennings, R.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorne, K. W. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pitman, I. J.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch


Donner, P. W.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.




Raikes, H. V.
Speir, R. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Redmayne, M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Renton, D. L. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stevens, G. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Robson-Brown, W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Roper, Sir Harold
Storey, S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Russell, R. S.
Studholme, H. G.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Schofield, Lt. Col. W. (Rochdale)
Sutcliffe, H.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Scott, R. Donald
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Teeling, W.
William, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, G.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Snadden, W. McN.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.



Soames, Capt. C.
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearman, A. C. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Keenan, W.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
King, Dr. H. M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ewart, R.
Kinley, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Awbery, S. S.
Field, W. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Follick, M.
MacColl, J. E.


Bence, C. R.
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Benn, Wedgwood
Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Beswick, F.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Manuel, A. C.


Boardman, H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Messer, F.


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.


Carmichael, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D.
Hastings, S.
Oldfield, W. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Clunie, J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oswald, T.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Collick, P. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford. S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pannell, Charles


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Donnelly, D. L.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bremwich)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H


Edelman, M.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, Frederic Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)







Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Royle, C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, David (Neath)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomson. George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Slater, J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Snow, J. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Wyatt, W. L.


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
Younger Rt. Hon. K.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)
Mr. Popplewell and


Swingler, S. T.
West, D. G.
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The statement that we heard a few moment ago from the Leader of the House seemed to indicate that there is not now quite the same urgency in getting Government business disposed of that we had thought. It now appears that, after all, the House will have to sit on August Bank Holiday, a decision with which I have no quarrel and with which most of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have no quarrel This decision does help, however, to destroy the validity of the argument of urgency that has been advanced on more than one occasion by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I am not going to attempt the impossible task of teaching the Leader of the House manners or of how to conduct himself as the Leader of the House, but I urge upon the House that there is now no case for taking the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill immediately after the Report stage, as is now proposed. The Committee stage of the Civil List Bill was concluded only at 12.30 or one o'clock this morning, and it is surely an abuse of the procedure of the House to ask us to agree to this Motion.
I am not going to traverse the arguments which have been advanced both for and against this Bill. What I want to make quite clear at the present moment is that there is no case now for this Motion, that we on this side of the House, or, at any rate, some of us, are prepared to give whatever further time is necessary

for the dignified and decorous discussion of this Bill and other legislation which the Government have in mind. For this reason, I want to register my objection to this Motion, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may, in the new circumstances that have arisen since he put down this Motion, be prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I, who took part in the debate on the Civil List Bill and sat into the early hours of the morning, say a few words in opposing this Motion? Why is there urgency to rush the Civil List Bill through without due consideration of every aspect of it, especially in view of the circumstances of the Bill and the fact that we are likely to get the opportunity only once in a generation to discuss the principles outlined in it?
I submit that a large number of hon. Members were unable to hear the very cogent, elaborate and complicated arguments of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who went into detail about whether or not the Civil List should he subject to taxation, and that if they were aware of these arguments it would greatly influence their decision on the Bill.
The difficulty is that hon. Members who were not here will have no opportunity of reading the very elaborate arguments of the hon. Member for Sowerby until the OFFICIAL REPORT appears tomorrow morning. I think that the House should give consideration to those very important and elaborate arguments, and as there is no great urgency for the Civil List Bill this week, it should be discussed on Friday, with


decorum and dignity, and should not be rushed through in this way which prevents proper discussion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 223.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[4.6 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gage, C. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, L. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baker, P. A. D.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gough, C. F. H.
Marples, A. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sulton)


Banks, Col. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus


Barlow, Sir John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maudling, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hay, John
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bowen, E. R.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nutting, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.


Braine, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H (Antrim, M.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holt, A. F.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Horobin, I. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pitman, I. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, H. V.


Cole, Norman
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, [...])


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robson-Brown, W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Russell, R. S.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, R. Donald


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Digby, S. Wingfield
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smiles,, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leather, E. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donner, P. W.
Legh, P. R (Petersfield)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Martin
Soames, Capt. C.


Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Speir, R. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, G. P.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Storey, S.




Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Tilney, John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wellwood, W.


Studholme, H. G.
Turner, H. F. L.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Summers, G. S.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Sutcliffe, H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wade, D. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)



Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Major Conant and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Murray, J. D.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nally, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Awbery, S. S.
Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bence, C. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pannell, Charles


Benn, Wedgwood
Grey, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Beswick, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paton, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Peart, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hannan, W.
Porter, G.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Hargreaves, A.
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hastings, S.
Reeves, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brockway, A. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Rhodes, H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Richards, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Short, E. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Craddock, George (Bradford. S)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kennan, W.
Steele, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinley, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Fienburgh, W.
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Usborne, H. C.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Foot, M. M.
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)







Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


West, D. G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Lieut.-Cot. Lipton and


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Witkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1952–53

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a further sum, not exceeding £70, be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the work of the Monopolies Commission for the year ending on 31st March, 1953 namely:—

Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1952–53



£


Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade
10


Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply
10


Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health
10


Class V, Vote 13, Department of Health for Scotland
10


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
10


Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power
10


Revenue Departments, Vote 3, Post Office
10


Total
£70

Orders of the Day — MONOPOLIES COMMISSION

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: We should like, next in the series of events today, to have a few words about monopolies. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade for his observations on the working of the 1948 Act dealing with this matter and the working of the Monopolies Commission, both of which are his responsibility, although many of his right hon. Friends have a collateral responsibility for making orders and so forth under the Act. We should like to know what is going on, what lessons it is thought are to be drawn from experience after four years' working of the Act, what the Government are doing about it all—if anything—what they are thinking of doing about it all, and why they have not carried out the promise in the Gracious Speech that
a measure will be laid before you for strengthening and widening the activities of the Monopolies Commission.
I appreciate that it is out of order in Committee of Supply to discuss legislation, but I believe I am in order in

observing that we meet this afternoon in a situation in which we are still awaiting the legislation promised in the Gracious Speech. Therefore, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, within the bounds of order, he can tell us why we have not had anything yet and whether—here I think I am firmly in order—the failure of the Government to carry out their promise to legislate means that the right hon. Gentleman is completely satisfied with the present state of affairs. When he is giving an account of his administrative stewardship, I hope he will say whether he is completely satisfied with the working of the Act, with the rate of progress which has been made by the Monopolies Commission in the past four years, and with the manner of progression which the Commission has adopted.
These are important questions, and as a Member of the Government which had collective responsibility for bringing in the 1948 Act I wish to say, quite frankly, that I regard it as a very great disappointment indeed in its practical operation. My right hon. Friends and I hoped that the Measure would lead to much quicker results and much more effective action against monopolistic and restrictive practices than has been the case. I frankly confess that we are deeply disappointed with the way things have worked out and we are therefore very anxious that, by one means or another, these difficulties should be smoothed away.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If my right hon. Friend will permit me, and without making any personal reflection on him whatsoever, may I say that those of us who tried to make it stronger are even more disappointed than he is

Mr. Dalton: My direct responsibility for the affairs of the Board of Trade ended, of course, in the latter days of the Coalition Government, so that I am not very directly touched by this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton was responsible as President, and I only tried to give helpful assistance as a colleague. I was not the prime mover.
What has happened? Hardly anything is moving at all. The whole thing is desperately slow. As I watch all these operations, I am reminded of a fleet of tortoises going to a funeral. It is really no faster than that. Since


March, 1949, when the Monopolies Commission began work, they have made four Reports—only four. I do not intend to go into much detail about them, because many of my hon. Friends will no doubt wish to elaborate on the details.
They made a Report in December, 1950, on the supply of dental goods; in April, 1951, on the supply of rain-water goods; in November, 1951, on the supply of electric lamps, and in July, 1952, on the supply of insulated electrical wires and cables. That is all they have reported on so far, so there would not be very much in the picture if they were at Helsinki just now.
Let us briefly consider what has happened following those four Reports. On the dental goods Report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who was then the Minister of Health, made a very good Statutory Order in July, 1951, and I recall with satisfaction my collective part in that. In that Order he forbade a number of most objectionable practices which had been clearly revealed in the very remarkable Report of the Commission on the dental goods supply system. In that Order my right hon. Friend forbade the objectionable practices of exclusive dealing, collective boycott, arrangements which restrict entry into the trade and the nefarious practice of collective resale price maintenance. My only regret is that it is not yet clear whether effect has been given to that Order by the traders and monopolists concerned.
My right hon. Friend has in fact been putting Questions to the Minister of Health in the present Administration about this matter. We had, I repeat, an Order made by my right hon. Friend a year ago this month. Yet on 12th June of this year, in reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend, the present Minister of Health was only able to say that he had received a copy of the revised rules of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders, which was now under consideration. Why? It was under consideration to see whether these monopolists, against whom the Order had been issued, had, in regard to a whole series of gross and anti-social practices, yet mended their ways, even on paper. That is all we have.
I should like to know why there has been this tenderness towards a group of people who had been convicted by the Monopolies Commission of nearly all the offences of which we suspected they might conceivably be guilty. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman necessarily to reply himself. That is for the convenience of himself and whoever else may speak from the other side of the House. But at some stage in this debate we should like to know why there has been this delay and tenderness towards these people.
The next two Reports are on rain water goods and electric lamps. No Order has yet been issued in either case. Indeed, since the present Government came into office, no Orders under this Act have been issued at all. I do not know how many of these people—as is sometimes said—have contributed towards party funds on one side of the House or the other. I do not know whether there is a lurking explanation of that here. No Order has been made against these groups of monopolists in the case of rain-water goods. It is the Minister of Works who is responsible. He said on 27th November—a Report having been made in April, 1951—
My Department has received an assurance that new trading arrangements to carry out the recommendations of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission will replace the present agreements. I should like to place on record my appreciation of their co-operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 129.]
But it is still in the future. They are going to consider whether perhaps they will take notice of what has been said about them. But no Order has been made, nothing has been published, and we have not yet had a copy laid before the House of their new code of conduct. I think that is very unsatisfactory.
To come to electric lamps, about the malpractice in the supply of which a good deal was known before—it is a notorious case of price rigging and the exclusion of new entrants—although the Report was made in November, 1951, it was not until 19th May of this year that the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for this branch of our industry, said that both the Government and the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association had accepted the Commission's recommenda-


tions. It is very good of the manufacturers to accept them, and I think that we must be very grateful for their kindly approach. They have accepted the recommendations, except for abolition of rebates. I will not develop that. We were told that a new scheme promoted by the E.L.M.A. would come into force on 1st July, 1952. I should like to know if that has been published. Are we to see this new scheme and be able to exercise our own judgment as to whether, on the face of this new scheme, the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission have been carried out?
Finally, there is the question of insulated cables. I will not spend much time on that, because the Report has only just been received and it is not reasonable at present to expect action. I would hope that in all these three cases we shall get an Order. Assurances are all very well, but the whole purpose of the Act was to give new power to the relevant Minister to make an Order and to ensure that objectionable practices should become illegal as from the date of the Order. So much for what has happened so far, and it is really not a very good story.
There were discussions in this House in the last Parliament and in this Parliament. I have looked up some of the past debates. There was an extraordinarily good debate on 15th June, 1951, when we were able to go wider than we can today because there was no such bar as exists today about discussing legislation. In that debate there were two very able and interesting speeches made at the beginning, and others later, by two of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines). Those speeches will well repay re-reading.
I will select one interesting statistic from one of those speeches. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who made the calculation quoted in that debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, that at the rate of progress at that time prevailing, it would take 2,400 years for the whole of industry to be surveyed by the Monopolies Commission. That struck me very much at the time, and I am inclined to think that, even

if we take into account what has happened since then, that figure is about right within a margin of error of a few hundred years on either side I hope that that will have impressed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and encouraged him to see whether he can do something to foreshorten future history. Enough has come out, even in these few Reports that we have had, greatly to strengthen the belief that many of us already held, based on other studies which had been made, that British trade and industry today are literally honeycombed with monopolistic and restrictive practices of all sorts.
This leads to a number of consequences, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will agree are very undesirable. It leads not only to the more obvious objection that prices are higher than they ought to be and profits are larger than they ought to be, but to a general atmosphere of inefficiency in industry, resistance to change and to new ideas, and it leads also to gross tyranny by trade associations over traders or other persons who may be within the ambit of their interests. These are the two main counts which I put against these monopolistic activities.
There are two or three principal monopolistic practices—I shall not discuss them in detail—which are emerging from practically all these reports. They are the use of the collective boycott, exclusive dealing, the black list and restrictions on new entry into the trade. These occur with monotonous regularity, and there is evidence to show that they occur in other places which have not yet been probed by the Monopolies Commission.
I have already referred to the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North in the debate last June. He used a vivid phrase. He said:
I do not want to cover the ground again of trade associations…
He had already made some reference to that subject.
It is remarkable how, in modern businesses, practices are conducted, which are very similar to the practices for which people in other walks of life are today sent to prison. There are the Star Chamber, locked doors, fines and penalties. A man can be economically murdered for carrying out the very principles in commerce that hon. Members advocate both in this House and on the public platform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1951; Vol. 488; c. 2702–3.]


That is a very serious state of affairs, and I had hoped that before now the Government would have done something to deal with it.
I should like to quote one more passage from the White Paper issued by the late Government dealing with resale price maintenance. In that White Paper it was stated:
If a trader fails to observe any of these rules and regulations by which the associations seek to close any loopholes in the operation of resale price maintenance, he may suffer penalties ranging in severity from fine (in some cases involving substantial sums) up to the boycott. (It is worth noting, too, that a trader who by charging too little for his goods incurs these penalties at the hands of a trade association has no recourse to any higher authority.
It is final. It is economic murder.
By contrast, a trader, who charges too much and is proceeded against by the State under price-control laws, can always appeal to, a higher court.) These penal proceedings, which may have the effect of driving a shopkeeper out of his trade and which are directed not to the maintenance of a recognised standard or code of behaviour, generally accepted as necessary in the public interest, but solely to the enforcement of a particular trade policy of questionable merit, take place behind closed doors and without any supervision by the courts or by Parliament.
That is a very grave condition of affairs, or so it seemed to the late Administration. Without wishing to put myself out of order, I would say this. Had the late Administration remained in power, few things are more certain than that we should have legislated on this subject this Session not merely in terms of the White Paper on resale price maintenance but in wider terms than that. I am dissatisfied that nothing has been done to deal with these matters yet.
What can be done under the present Act? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been considering this. Has he any idea of any measures to speed up the work of the Commission itself? A number of suggestions have been made. I should like him to tell us in his own words. Further, has he considered the use that might be made of procedure laid down under Section 6 (2) of the Act or under Section 15 of the Act, both of which, when we were considering the form of the Bill when it was going through Parliament, seemed to hold out special hope of speedy and effective action, but neither of which has yet been used.
Section 6 (2) of the Act permits the Monopolies Commission, if they have established that monopoly conditions prevail in an industry, thereafter to confine their study to the actual effect of specified restrictive practices. At present they write a treatise about the industry. They go into everything, which is no doubt interesting to the student, but does not get us quickly to the point. It is possible under Section 6 (2) for the Monopolies Commission to concentrate their brainpower, which is considerable if they can concentrate it, upon studying the effect of some particular restrictive practice in an industry, provided a prima facie case for the existence of that practice has been made out.
Section 15 of the Act is even potentially more valuable, because it empowers the Board of Trade to refer to the Commission the effects in industry generally, and not simply in one industry, of some particular restrictive practice, such as collective boycott, restrictions on new entry and so forth. Such references can be made within the terms of the Statute, provided the Commission has already satisfied the President of the Board of Trade that such a practice widely exists now.
My submission would be that, even in the small number of Reports which we have so far had, there is plenty of evidence that some of these practices are at least as widespread as the total field of the Commission's inquiries up to date, and probably a great deal more widespread than that. Perhaps, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he has given thought to action under these two Sections, and if so, when it will begin
What do Ministers propose to do about this matter? Grave words are rightly spoken about the economic difficulties of this country, and all of us on both sides of the Committee would wish to do all we can to make it easier, or at least less difficult, for us to pay our way in external trade, for exports to be expanded and productivity to resume the increase which at the moment seems to have been checked.
In the battle of the balance of payments in which we are engaged, and the verb hard battle for exports which is part of it, we cannot afford as a nation to carry on our backs into battle the dead weight of these monopolistic and restrictive


practices of private industry. We cannot afford the organised discouragement by powerful private vested interests of new enterprises, new ideas, new men and new methods. We cannot afford all that. It should be done away with and thrust off the backs of our more enterprising private traders and industrialists.
If Britain is to win through now, she must be able to shake off this incubus of highly organised private unenterprise. She must be free enough in this fight to make the most of all she is and all she has. I wish to know on which side in this battle for freedom Ministers stand.

4.40 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I welcome this debate and the speech with which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has initiated our discussion. It covers the field and asks a number of perfectly proper and pertinent questions to which I shall seek to reply. Other matters will be dealt with in more detail later.
We are at a stage in the Session when, it is well known, the pressure of business reaches almost its maximum point, and there are considerable problems of long-term and short-term economic policy confronting us. In a way it is all the more fitting and appropriate, and rather typical, that the House of Commons should turn aside for a moment from the general consideration of these problems to discuss in the comparative calm of a Supply Day one particular aspect of things, namely, the work of the Monopolies Commission and the action which Her Majesty's Government take upon the Reports which are placed before us.
It is important, not because that work and those Reports can make some immediate impact upon our economic position. They cannot really tilt the balance of payments one way or the other; but I think the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that in the long term they are important, because sound judgment and sound knowledge of these problems of monopoly are essential to our interests and will affect in the long run the whole pattern of our economic life.
I should like to say at once—and I am sure that I shall carry the whole Committee with me—that all of us owe a debt

of gratitude to the work of the Commission. That work has been of a high judicial quality. Some people have said, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to say, that the output has been slow. I will say something more about that in a moment, but I say now that it is much better to take a long time to produce a good thing than a short time to produce a bad thing. The worst service which this Commission could have done to the interests which all of us have at heart would have been a series of quick, perfunctory decisions. No one would have believed that matters had been properly inquired into, and certainly the Reports would not have carried with them the authority which they do carry.
At any rate, whatever view one takes, no one would suggest that it is a simple task to unravel the tangled skein of somebody else's business. It is quite a big job to take out of a mass of irrelevancies, which, however one organises a business, are bound to be there, and to which attention need not be very much directed, the real, essential matters on which attention must be focused. The results are not academic. The results, the decisions and the actions which are taken on the decisions, affect not only the employers and the people who have risked their capital, but affect intimately as well the livelihood of everybody, every worker, who happens to be dependent upon the prosperity of the particular concern or trade.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Would the right hon. Gentleman refer to the question of the cost of living, which so far he has not adumbrated at all? There has been no inquiry of any sort or kind on that matter, but it is the function of the Board of Trade to refer any such matter for inquiry. That has not been referred to the Commission. Why has this question of the cost of living not been dealt with in any way by the Commission?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The cost of living is a subject of great importance, but not one which is suitable for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
I was saying that the Commission have not only done a good job but have done it in a manner which I believe has impressed the public with the Commission's calibre and willingness to study


these matters with care before they give authoritative judgments.
I should like to make one or two general observations about the general philosophy which lies behind the work of this Commission and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The basis of the monopoly legislation is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Coalition Government's White Paper of 1944. This is an all-party policy to that extent. There was agreement about the main road which should be travelled. Each party has seen attractive byeways as it has gone along the road, but the main theme of monopoly legislation has been agreed. I should like to remind the Committee of the precise terms in which that was laid down, because they will bear repetition. The White Paper said:
There has in recent years been a growing tendency towards combines and towards agreements both national and international by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and fix conditions of sale. Such agreements or combines do not necessarily operate against the public interest, but the power to do so is there. The Government will therefore seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive arrangements and of the activities of the combines; and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole.
That represented then, as I believe it represents now, the area of agreement between all parties on this matter. What is to be noted is not how much we differ but how much we all agree in the general way in which we approach the subject.
It is worth noting that the way we approach these matters happens to be almost the exact opposite to that which is followed in the United States of America. That does not mean that the United States are necessarily wrong. They started their monopoly legislation a good deal before we did, and it may be that if we had started at the same time we might have approached the matter in the same way. We have approached it from different ends. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is quite definite and precise on the matter. It says:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among several States or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.

In that simple phrase is the whole nub of monopoly legislation in the United States.
In this matter, as in many other matters which we have tackled, we have preferred an objective and an empirical approach. We do not assume that a trade combination is necessarily evil. What we say is that we want to have a very good look at it. We want to see what it is doing, how it is doing it and what are the practices that have been carried on, and to examine whether they are in fact against the public interest or not. We recognise that the effect of a restrictive practice on the public interest may be different in different industries and that what may be harmful in one case may not be harmful, or might even be helpful, in another. In our method the so-called restrictive practices are judged in the context of particular industries.
I would go rather further. A restrictive practice may be good at one moment and bad at another. Judgment on that must vary in time as well as in circumstances. That is true of all countries. We all assume that the Sherman Act, with its rigid prohibition of monopoly, is the clearest possible case of anti-monopoly legislation, but if one looks over the history of the United States in the great depression, it will be found that the main principles underlying the Sherman Act were virtually abandoned during that time. The National Industrial Recovery Act of that time actually encouraged industry to form combines and keep up the prices.
It was the same here. In the recession of the 'thirties restrictive practices grew up, and they were not confined to one side of industry or the other. Both sides did it, employers and trade unions and the purpose of both sides was the same, to spin out the limited amount of work available because, if one finished one's job, one might not find another job to go to. That is why those practices grew up.
If those restrictions were understandable or excusable or even inevitable in the 'thirties, many of them are quite intolerable in the 'fifties. Circumstances have changed and the needs of the age are different. May I here confess my prejudice in this matter, because I think politicians are entitled to have prejudices? I have a prejudice against monopoly. I


always have had it. I have never made any secret about it. In speeches and in writing I have attacked monopoly. I attacked the privately-owned monopoly which was at one time suggested. I attacked the agreement between road and rail which preceded the nationalisation Act. I have always been quite clear about it.
With some exceptions I believe, in general, that competition is good for us. I believe that there is no comparable device for safeguarding the consumer—at least none that has so far been invented. Competition is good for industry. I know of no other set-up which will really extract from it the last ounce of extra effort which is required. I think it is perhaps good for government. No Government would work to its fullest extent if it had no opposition, though I admit one can have too much even of a good thing.
In the main this country suffers, not from too much competition, but from too little, and that too little has been increased often by the actions of government itself. Certainly I have a prejudice against those who seek to agglomerate power into a few hands and then possibly abuse it. I do not know whether I shall carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in saying, in passing, that my prejudice does not distinguish too carefully between public and private monopoly. Both have well been described as
those proud corporations beyond the fear of a rival and below the confession of an error.
I think both want watching carefully.
Having confessed my prejudices, with which I hope the Committee have some sympathy, may I say that I accede to the generally accepted view that the right approach to this matter is by the agreed and accepted machinery of the Monopolies Commission, that our energies ought to be bent towards improving and perfecting it and using it to the full, and perhaps—though it is outside the range of this debate—at some time extending it. But I must add that, looking at these Reports as a whole, apart from the specific practices—to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention and about which I shall speak in a moment—the Commission has on balance spoken well of the industries which it has examined. It has brought out points

which it thinks could be altered or done better or which are against the public interest but, on balance, it has spoken well of the industries submitted to it.
The machinery which exists today falls into two parts. The first is the getting of information about the operation of these practices and their effect. The second is the taking of suitable action. The getting of the information is the job of the Commission and the subsequent action is the job of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what had been done and how fast was the progress. Let me briefly review what has been done.
Eleven references have been made so far. The first batch, shortly after the Commission was appointed, concerned lamps, cables, rain-water goods, dental goods, and matches and match-making machinery. Then, at later dates, nonferrous metals, insulin, printed fabrics, the supply of imported timber and electrical machinery. Those apparently unconnected industries were chosen deliberately, some by me and some by my predecessor, to cover a wide range of industry and as many different types of practice as possible. I think it was right to cover a wide range of industry. It was right to go from engineering products to medical supplies, printed fabrics and the like because, by covering so wide a range, we got earlier a more general picture of the kind of problems we were up against.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the type of references. All of these have been done under what I might call the normal reference method; that is to say, the whole industry is referred and the Commission looks at the problem to see whether the conditions of monopoly are fulfilled, whether the practices are against the public interest, and so on.
There is another way, as the right hon. Gentleman said. There is the Section 6 (2) procedure. I was rather attracted by that procedure under which, instead of referring the whole industry, we would say, "Do not look at the whole, just look at this one thing which we think it is doing wrong." I do not say for a moment that I rule that out. On close examination, however, I have been impressed with some of the difficulties of that procedure. It is all very well to say there is a particular practice—there probably is—but, on looking at it, one finds that it is almost inextricably interwoven with


many other practices and it is not at all easy to separate the one from the other when making this examination. However, as I say, I do not rule it out.

Mr. Dalton: Would it not be interesting to make an experiment and have a Section 6 (2) operation in one case without committing oneself beyond that, to see how it works?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In a moment I shall describe what my future plans are touching on that matter and I shall deal with Section 15 then, if I may.
So far as the Reports themselves are concerned, I admit that they were slow in starting. After all, it takes time to get this information. It is quite a large undertaking to make an inquiry into a whole industry.
In 1950, only one Report was produced, that on dental goods. In 1951, two Reports were produced—rain-water goods and the Report on the electric lamp industry. In 1952, so far the Report on cables has been produced and is now under consideration and we hope, before the end of this year, to have one on matches and match-making machinery—which I count as one for the moment for this purpose—and another on insulin. I do not say it is rapid, but the rate of reporting has certainly increased considerably and it is probably now running at two or two and a half reports a year.
I have been looking at the question to see whether any procedural arrangements would enable a speed-up. When I say that I have, I should say that the Commission have, because they are as anxious as anybody to see that the work is as expeditious as is consistent with efficiency. They have adopted a modified panel procedure whereby some of the inquiring on the factual side need not necessarily be done by the whole Commission, though the report is that of the whole Commission and all the really important examination has to be done by the Commission as a whole. However, that is a useful contribution. As to the action which is being taken, and about which I was asked—

Mr. Anthony Crosland: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say whether that is to be carried out merely with the existing staff of the Commission? I

should have thought that a modified panel system would not have produced any acceleration in the Reports unless there was an enormous increase in the staff of the Commission.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member has in mind the numbers of the members of the Commission or the secretarial staff.

Mr. Crosland: Secretarial staff.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is being carried out with the existing secretarial staff. If there were need for more, no obstacle would be put in the way. So far, however, the limit is not the number of the secretarial staff, but is more the number of the commissioners, because it is on them that the main burden of responsibility rests.
So far as the actions taken are concerned, the dental goods Report recommended, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that an Order should be issued; and an Order to prohibit exclusive dealing and collective boycott was issued. I should not say that nothing happened, because from that moment collective boycott and exclusive dealing became an illegal practice.
There were other matters which the Report dealt with, and it recommended certain amendments of the rules. Those rules have been amended so that no overt, as it were, exclusive dealing should take place. This situation is being watched. It is particularly important, after these Reports have been made and action has been taken, that a watch should be kept to see that the real intention of the Commission should be kept to, and that is being done in this case.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Did the Report make any recommendation about prices of dental goods?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Member speaks later and asks a question about prices, I will see that it is answered.
On the question of rain-water goods, which falls within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, the Report was produced. There was no recommendation that an Order should be made. The previous Government urged the industry concerned to amend its rules


to take account of the recommendations of the Commission. That action was followed up by this one. The rules have, in fact, been amended to supersede the rain-water goods agreements of which complaint was made, and these new rules were introduced on 1st January, 1952. The effect of them will, of course, be kept under close watch by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalton: Will the rules be published in some convenient form?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The rules of these associations remain the rules of the associations, and they are issued to their members, although the Government have a copy of them. They are not, I understand, published. This, of course, raises a much wider issue as to whether more knowledge should not be had generally of rules of this character.

Mr. Dalton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, I think, "No."
As regards the electric lamp Report which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, the Commission, when they reported, did not insist on the end of the common manufacturers' price, which was the notable feature of the E.L.M.A., but they did call for the abolition of certain collective arrangements of a restrictive character; and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply announced the Government's agreement with the Commission's findings. The industry has amended its rules, with one technical exception—the question of aggregated rebates—which I am perfectly prepared to deal with if the matter is raised in debate. In broad principle, however, the industry has amended its rules to take account of the Report of the Commission and the decision of the Government.
Now, a word about the future. I do not propose to refer to individual industries which might possibly be referred. It has never been our practice to do that, and it is much better not to do so. Looking at the various Reports which have been produced, one is bound to examine them, not only with regard to the industry concerned, but to see what lessons can be drawn from them; to see whether there

is any common theme which runs through them, and whether, within the framework of the existing law, we could make a more comprehensive use of the Commission.
Given the empirical approach, I think it was clearly right and necessary that the Commission should begin their work by studies of particular trades. But it has always been recognised that the accumulation of case studies of that kind might suggest that certain practices were widely prevalent and were likely to have similar effects in other industries, and that some authoritative general judgments ought to be formed and made known for the guidance of industry as a whole on the effect of these practices on the public interest.
The Commission's first four Reports raise, I think, a very strong presumption that such practices exist. In each case, the Commission have found a complex system of restrictive arrangements affecting distribution, and they all had a strong family resemblance. The Commission have found that in many respects they are contrary to the public interest. Instances where similar features are known to exist in many other trades have not as yet been examined in detail, and in my view the time has come when we can, and should, seek more general advice about the desirability of some of these practices.
Although the four Reports certainly point the way to certain useful generalisations, one cannot found a judgment on those four Reports alone. We need to know within what limits the generalisations hold good, whether there are any exceptional cases in which normally undesirable practices may become innocuous or even desirable, and by what criteria such cases, if they exist, should be judged. All this points to some further general consideration about these practices.
Section 15 provides, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a basis for a consideration of that kind. I admit that in the form in which it has been bequeathed to us it is not wholly satisfactory for the purpose; there are difficulties about it, but I do not believe that those difficulties are insuperable, and I propose to ask the Commission at an early date to undertake a general study of some practices based on their original Reports.
Whilst matters are at that stage, the Committee would not expect me to


announce the precise scope of the prospective inquiry in the sense of detailing the terms of reference. Hon. Members will, however, recall that in each of their Reports, the Commission have criticised certain aspects of what I might group together as exclusive dealing and collective boycott. That has been the centre of their problem, and I should say that this practice is, clearly, a very strong candidate for early examination.
I thank the Opposition for raising this subject today. We can congratulate the Monopolies Commission on their painstaking and useful work. They have produced some Reports of high quality. Action has been taken upon those Reports, and already a certain pattern of the problem seems to be emerging. I think the time has now come to take a further step forward. We propose to take it by making one of these references under Section 15 for consideration on the general practice. I ask the Committee, therefore, to say that on balance we are satisfied with the progress that the Commission have made, and to approve our programme for the immediate future.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: This problem of monopolies, this economic crusade, seems to unite 19th century Liberals, modern Socialists and modern Tories and I believe that in various parts of the Committee there is a general feeling about the operation and the manifestations of monopoly practices.
Before I proceed I should like to put myself right with the Committee. In a previous debate, in July last year, I made an observation which I now find is not correct. This House confers upon us the privilege of speech without fetters and I think it is incumbent upon all hon. Members to honour that privilege.
I made a statement about the British Employers' Federation, in which I implied that the Federation had been responsible, in the electric lamp industry, for arriving at agreed rates between factory and factory in the industry. I made that statement in all good faith arising directly out of my negotiations as a trade union official with a company when I had substantially made my case for increasing wage rates due to the efficiency of that company. I was told after the meeting, in a confidential manner by one of the managers who were negotiating, that I

had substantially made my case but, as I was a loyal member of my trade union, they were also loyal members of their trade union and, whilst they agreed that something should be done, they were unable to do it on that account.
Representations which have been made to me have strongly denied this. The Employers' Federation, with whom I have been in contact, say that this was not so. I therefore wish, unreservedly, to withdraw that statement, because I do not want it to be said that a trade union official should be any party to upsetting the good relations between management and men.
This problem in general was dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade. He has been concerned with the speed at which Reports have been reaching this House from the Monopolies Commission. I gave evidence before the Monopolies Commission on the electric lamp industry. I believe the Attorney-General gave evidence for the industry. I can assure the Committee that the method of examination and the procedure followed is exercised with extreme care. So far as I could see, in the short examination I underwent nothing was left to chance. Even the statements I made were not accepted at their face value because I was a union representative, but were submitted to other people within the trade union representation for confirmation or rejection.
The whole position has now become somewhat difficult in regard to the Commission and its activities. There is wide scope over some industries and if the time taken to submit Reports so far represents an average for the whole range of industry it may be 15 years before reports on each industry are completed. It may be advisable to look for ways whereby the speed at which the Commission works may be made more apparent. A panel has been suggested, but I think that a better way would be to re-cast the Commission into divisions under separate chairmen to investigate each separate industry, so arriving at a balanced position covering the whole of monopoly practices in, say, three years from now.
Against that, there is the American method which declares monopolies as such against the public interest and they are outlawed. We could decide to do


that, but it would give rise to numerous discussions, disagreements and breaches of contract which would be taken to the law courts, as is apparent to anyone who has studied the American method.
The Report of the Commission on the electric lamp industry is an excellent Report. The Commission can be complemented on its style and comprehensiveness. It has taken two and a half years to produce the Report, but I think that those of us who have taken the trouble to read it have come to the conclusion that if it may be taken as a pattern on which other reports will operate we may be able to see the situation more clearly. The electric lamp industry has, in the past, combined all the bad and good features of monopoly practices. They have been putting their house in order since the establishment of the Commission. The Report covers the whole industry since its inception more than 70 years ago.
Manufacture of electric lamps began in this country in 1879 with one firm having a monopoly based on patent rights. I believe that these expired in about 1893, when new firms entered the industry. Even before the 1914–18 war manufacturers were seeking ways of eliminating competition. The outcome of their discussions was that a trade association was formed in 1919 which was responsible for 90 per cent. of the production of the industry's total output.
During the years 1920 to about 1933 there was a revival of competition and in 1933 the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association was formed. That Association was the subject of the Report. The old agreement was replaced by this very comprehensive body. Since that time the industry has become more centralised and has given rise to some of the worst practices of monopoly. The result was that by 1950 six large companies controlled the financial interests of the electric light manufacturing business of this country. Only one lamp manufacturing company was outside the scope of E.L.M.A. contracts.
The companies which form E.L.M.A. are: Associated Electrical Industries, Limited—which includes British Thomson-Houston, Limited, Edison Swan Electric Company, Limited, and Metropolitan-Vickers Electrical Company, Limited—General Electric Company,

Limited, Philips (Holland)—which includes Philips Electric, Limited, and Stella Lamp Company, Ltd.—Cryselco, Limited—which is jointly owned by G.E.C. and Philips—Siemens Electric Lamps and Supplies, Limited, and Crompton-Parkinson, Limited.
There we have a formidable combination for manufacturing and regulating the whole of the output of the electric lamp industry. Of these five major groups, two—the General Electric and A.E.I.—dominated the Association, accounting for more than 50 per cent. of the total production of E.L.M.A. manufacturers.
Membership of E.L.M.A. offers to manufacturers very important and very conservative advantages. For instance, it offers the abandonment of price competition and allocates to individual firms a fixed quota of the industry's total sales. It pools most patents and research facilities. The Association maintains fixed selling prices agreeable to all its members and foreign competition is brought under control by an agreement which is known as the Phoebus agreement. It has divided world markets by allocating quotas based on existing sales. That agreement operated until 1939 and has not been renewed, but the 1948 agreement signed by Philips of Holland with E.L.M.A. established for Great Britain and the Empire the same type of trading conditions which have operated under the world agreement.
It is interesting to look at what the Commission have said about this agreement. They have, in effect, said that, in addition to restrictions on marketing, members of E.L.M.A. are subject to price-fixing by the Council of the Association; the net price to be charged to any given purchaser for a given type of lamp is laid down and is the same regardless of which member made the lamp or who is the immediate seller, with an obligation on the seller at each stage to observe the price fixed.
The buying terms vary according to E.L.M.A.'s classification of the purchaser as wholesaler, retailer or user, with a defined range of discounts and rebates. Wholesalers of E.L.M.A. lamps must bind themselves to confine their sales to E.L.M.A. brands; but retailers need not so bind themselves, although they can gain an additional 5 per cent. discount if


they do. There are special arrangements with the British Electricity Authority.
The Commission recommend that, while they note that the prices fixed by the Association are now on the average moderate in relation to costs, the arrangements for exclusive dealing, the enforcement of resale price maintenance by means of collective sanctuary and the stop list, and ancillary arrangements should be brought to an end. I shall be dealing with that a little later when I have gone through the history of the companies a little more, because, tied up in this whole question, is the technical excellence of the companies now operating.
The methods of standardisation, pooled patents and research practically forbid, by virtue of that technical excellence, new entries into the industry. While that, in some instances, may be a good thing it is necessary that Parliament should, from the point of consumer control, exercise over the industry a periodic investigation to make sure that the consumer interest is not being jeopardised. The attempt by E.L.M.A. to control competition from independent companies has been very successful. Control of patents has put E.L.M.A. in a strong position. For instance, the independent Crompton Lamp Company which, at one time, seriously threatened the position of some of the E.L.M.A. companies in the 1930s was subdued and subsequently made to join E.L.M.A.
Britannia Lamps, of London, who were making a successful lamp for the cheap market—Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer's—was bought up entirely after it was so successful that the products of Britannia Lamps were challenging the lamps made by members of E.L.M.A. Over the whole range of their trade, E.L.M.A., in regard to the patents, research, marketing, technical advance, costings and distribution, made themselves secure against any competition which could benefit the general public.
Before they grant wholesale terms to wholesalers they insist, for example, upon exclusive dealing. Retailers are offered a 5 per cent. discount for undertaking to sell only E.L.M.A. lamps. That has placed them in a strong bargaining position. There was some years ago a well-known store in Oxford Street, the name of which is nationally known, which inadvertently offered for sale in its windows

some fluorescent tubes which had been manufactured by an independent company. Those tubes were not in that shop window for more than five hours before positive action had been taken by E.L.M.A.
That is the kind of thing that has been operating throughout the E.L.M.A. range of products. The Commission recommend the ending of price discrimination against non-members of E.L.M.A. who manufacture components and the abolition of sales under a sales quota system. It would perhaps be interesting to the Committee to consider the fact that in recommending the cessation of exclusive dealing the Commission do so after full consideration of all the facts affecting the industry. Although they do not publish the findings I think they have gone deeply into the possible effects which such restrictions may have upon the employees in those industries.
Since the institution of the Monopolies Commission E.L.M.A. have been making efforts to put their own house in order. As a matter of fact, they have been showing good behaviour. I can tell the Committee that the price for 100-watt electric lamp, which was the highest in the world in 1939, is now possibly one of the cheapest in the world.
Possible solutions have been suggested by the Commission. Miss Joan Robinson, a member of the Commission, suggests that the five E.L.M.A.-controlled companies could possibly be bought up by the Government and operated as an agency which would provide competition. That seems attractive, but, I do not think it tells the whole story because, with the exception of Britannia Lamps, most of these other lamp manufacturers are small concerns. For instance, Evenlite Tube Lamp Developments, Gnome Lamp Works, Ismay Lamps and Splendor Lamps, the whole of the controlled companies were responsible in 1950 for only 13 per cent. of the total output of the lamp industry. While that is a suggestion which has to be considered, I do not think it is really worth the Government's while to adopt it.
It is possible that the Government would be able to offer more serious competition if they were to embark upon a process whereby they manufactured their own lamps for the services which they directly operate. I refer, for example, to


a whole range of products manufactured by E.L.M.A. and sold to the Government for exclusive Government use. One particular instance is that of telephone lamps in telephone exchanges. There is no apparent reason why the General Post Office should not control the manufacture of their own telephone lamps.
The British Electricity Authority uses thousands of lamps, fluorescent and otherwise. Why should they not embark on the manufacture of their own products? There is no reason why the Forces, who, in face of ever-increasing technical complexity, are more or less relying on the electronic industry for new devices, should not begin to manufacture these themselves? We have only one division for electronic devices; it is that at Portsmouth, controlled by the Navy, and is concerned with silica valves for destroyers and submarines. There is no reason why we should not do these things as a means of offering more competition because these orders contain within themselves a large element of the price value. It would be an incentive to the companies to increase competition among themselves and thus bring prices down.
I throw that out as a suggestion. I do not want to get out of order on this subject, but one of the difficulties in this highly developed industry is that it is dependent entirely upon the excellence of its technical staff, its standardisation and its research. Though that position would face the Government and they would have to start from scratch and recruit the necessary technical staff, in my opinion that difficulty is not insurmountable, and the plan is one which should be considered.
I cannot see that the suggestion of this member of the Commission is one which should be adopted although she is a very able person. The fact is that the whole of the research in this industry is vested practically in the General Electric and B.T.H. Companies, and unless the Government are to go into this thing in a big way it would not be much use just to play about with it.

Mr. Cecil Poole: But does my hon. Friend not realise that the largest laboratories for research are now in the process of construction by an independent lamp manu-

facturer in this country? As for his suggestion about the Government engaging in lamp manufacture, is he not also aware of the very heavy capital expenditure involved before the Government can embark on the making of a single lamp?

Mr. Tomney: I know all those things, but I also added to my remarks the fact of the ever-increasing complexity of electronic devices which the Forces are now using. This will go on increasing and, in my opinion, although we vested in the Atomic Commission certain manufacturing rights on behalf of the people, there is no reason why we should not carry on a comparable system on the same basis for supplying the Army with electronic devices, complementary to the electric lamp manufacturing interests.
In conclusion, I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider my suggestion and see if he could not arrive at a like conclusion. The capital outlay for electric lamps of all types is not as heavy as my hon. Friend inferred by his interruption. It is research in the past which has cost most of the money, and the Government are now embarking on a project for atomic development and technique which, in some ways, is complementary to what is required for electronic and lamp industry. I consider the project well worthy of consideration in preference to the submission to the Commission by one of its members. This research by a company started by the Government would, I am sure, be most successful.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) into his careful resumé of the Report on E.L.M.A. lamps, because a lot of hon. Members can do so better than I and some will want to. I do not want either to follow him into the realm of possible Government activities in the lamp and electronic field. I feel that it would be disastrous for Government Departments to add to their present burdens by starting manufacture in a highly technical industry. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member, the Post Office Research Station at Dollis Hill is doing a highly specialised work on certain specialised valves and aspects of electronics, which ought to satisfy him at the present time.
The hon. Member submitted one or two points to the Committee which are of interest. He said—and this is a rather remarkable feature of which the Committee would want to take note—that the E.L.M.A. lamp industry was a most efficient one and—I direct the attention of the Committee to this—that most of the industries which have been subject to an inquiry by the Monopolies Commission have, in fact, proved to be highly efficient. This supports what we have always said, and while not denying the right to do certain things with monopoly, it is worth noting that those industries which have been examined have proved to be the most efficient.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) rather sneered at the co-operation of those in trade, and I hope that that will not be the keynote of hon. Members opposite, because I am well satisfied that the best way in which we can deal with this very complex problem is on the basis of cooperation between industry and Government. In the United States, after a long and varied history, they are coming round to that point of view, and I hope it will be widely accepted here in the United Kingdom.
Before I come to some points of substance, there are one or two small points about which I should like to put questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. First, judging from the report of the Board of Trade, the staff of the Commission has, in fact, been reduced. It stood in December, 1950, at 61 and by December, 1951, it bad gone down to 55. There has been, as there has been in all the main industries, a tremendous increase in the cost of salaries during this period, but there has been a reduction in the number on the staff, and in view of the general desire to see more speed perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would say a word as to how the reduction came about.
The second minor point I wish to make is that I am not at all happy about the reference to industries which have been complained about. Complaints about particular industries, without a guarantee that they have any solid basis, are, on the whole, against our general sense of justice, and these should not be published. The Section of the Act which

deals with this matter was put in the Act when it was in Standing Committee—I was a Member of that Committee upstairs—as a sop to some of the wilder elements in the party opposite. It was not put in as a part of the original Bill. I direct the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to this practice, which I do not feel to be wise or in conformity with our conception of justice.
Another small aspect concerns the examination of evidence before the Commission. It often happens that people, in giving evidence, make an allegation against an industry which is under review, and the people engaged in that industry are not always shown the allegations. It is a fact that the Commission discount many of these allegations or take steps to ascertain how far they are true.

Mr. Tomney: I do not think that is true, because when I was examined by the Commission I was asked whether I would mind if they submitted my evidence to the electric lamp manufacturing industry, and I said no. In fact, they were supplied with my observations.

Mr. Shepherd: It may well have been that the Commission thought it right to submit the memorandum of the hon. Member to the lamp manufacturers. I do not know, but I know there is a general complaint that that is not always done, and if justice is to appear to be done it should follow that if complaints are made before the Commission against an industry, that industry should have the opportunity of seeing what are the complaints and of giving an answer to them.
I do not complain, as some hon. Members have done today, about the inordinately slow progress of the Commission. I do not want this Commission to be a groundnut venture. I am quite happy that we should make a relatively sombre and steady start, because we want to establish a reliable body of case law, and we certainly could not establish it on the basis of a few sketchy observations which were put together in a hurry. I am quite satisfied what we have done here in proceeding slowly is wise, and that these Reports, although they have been slow in coming forward, have indeed been worth waiting for. They provide the basis upon which we can


move to something of a much more general nature.
I have listened carefully to hon. Gentlemen opposite and I have not yet heard any complaints about any monopoly which is a State monopoly. I wish later to make some comments about State monopoly. There is nothing more sacred about State monopoly than there is about private monopoly. If we were not satisfied about the speed with which this Commission have worked, we could extend the number of officers. This has been done in the United States of America, where there is an anti-trust division of the Department of Justice with 600 lawyers and a Federal State Corn-mission with 600 lawyers, each competing to bust the trusts and between them providing most remunerative occupations for 1,200 lawyers.
Attempts could be made to introduce legislation to deal with specific practices, but I am not very happy about the introduction of specific legislation. The American example of such legislation is, on the whole, rather discouraging. Mr. Mason, who is the Federal Trade Commissioner, told us when he came over here a couple of years ago that, in 1933, they put a pants presser in gaol for not fixing prices. After the National Industry Recovery Act had been held by the Schechter decision to be illegal they would have put him in gaol if he had fixed prices.
If we rush into legislation I am satisfied that we shall get ourselves into bad shape. I should like to remind the Committee about what has happened in the United States. They have been through all the gamut of legal activity; and where have they got to now? The Federal Trade Commission have decided that the introduction of legislation is not the way to go about this matter. They do something which I commend to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as a practical approach.
It is this. After a certain amount of investigation they call together the members of any industry and get agreement upon what are fair trade practices in that industry. In the United States they can then give legal sanction to those practices. That is a much better approach than that of introducing general legislation. There is no doubt that the conditions which

prevail in one industry may be against the public interest, whereas similar practices in another industry are not against the public interest. That is why I am against general legislation.
We ought to be careful when we approach the question of the power of the Monopolies Commission, to bear in mind where we want to go. I suggest to the Committee that we are not aiming, in 1952, to abolish all forms of collective action in industry. I am convinced that we must strike a balance between competition and stability. It is true—and one is not a defender of monopoly if one says this—that there are some industries where the value of stability is greater than the value of all-out competition. We have to decide where the public interest lies in all these spheres.
There is another matter to which I specially direct the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, they are the arch-monopolists. They have set up more monopolies in five years than have ever been established anywhere in the world, except in Russia, in a similar time. I direct their attention to what is a disadvantage of monopoly. It is not, I submit, a question merely of a lot of people getting together and wanting to extract something from the community. The danger of monopoly does not lie in the attempts of a group of people to exploit the community.
The danger of monopoly lies in its unconscious effect, the effect of removing the stimulus and saying that perhaps anything will do and that the reaction of the customer is not important. All these considerations exist as forcibly—indeed, more forcibly—in State monopolies than they do in private monopolies.

Mr. Poole: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in every case of what he calls a State monopoly, machinery has been created to enable the consumer to make any complaints known, and is not that something which does not exist in any private monopoly?

Mr. Shepherd: As I have said before, it is impossible to deal with the massive tranquillity of a State industry with the damp squib of a consumers' council. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who is a sensible person, with some knowledge of these matters, would have


risen to express his entire dissatisfaction with the effect of consumers' councils in their efforts to get what the consumer wants.
When we talk about monopolies we must get out of our minds the concept, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have had up to now, that there is an essential difference between a State monopoly and a private monopoly. There is no real difference at all. Although I cannot suggest legislation, I hope that at some time or other some organisation will be set up to deal with the State monopolies.
I conclude by saying that we on the back benches on this side of the Committee are most anxious to see the Monopolies Commission succeed. We are very glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite are becoming more realistic. I thought at one time that they were going entirely hay-wire. They used to tell us in the days of yesterday about armament manufacturers who went out stirring up wars in order to sell their ammunition. They dropped that and got on to monopolies and talked about the man who ground the faces of the poor by imposing exorbitant prices.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is only those who wrote the books who have dropped that.

Mr. Shepherd: The gist of what the hon. Gentleman said escapes me.
It is true that in the last few years hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken a more realistic view. We must bear in mind that we are not aiming in our monopoly legislation to drive out all competition. We appreciate that different industries require different practices and that even the stage of development of an industry may affect the decision whether a certain practice is in the public interest or against it. Even the state of the general economic development of a country will determine whether a certain practice is or is not against the public interest.
If we approach these problems from that point of view, the Monopolies Commission can do a great deal of good. British industry can be made much more healthy than it is today if we approach the matter realistically and put aside all the party prejudice which has been injected into this problem. The Monopolies Commission can then do a great deal to provide us with a much more healthy economy than we have had in the past.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: One of the few agreeable results of the change of Government last November has been the complete change in the temper and nature of the speeches which we hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. We used to have from him, and became very familiar with, excitable and rather deafening bursts of controversial rhetoric.
We had nothing of that today. We had a quiet, moderate and almost nonparty speech from him. It is very hard to recognise him as the same person who used to speak from the Opposition benches a year or two ago. We were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of the statements in his speech today, and especially for the very decent concession which he made when he said that he had a slight prejudice against monopolies. I suppose that that is something for which we on this side of the Committee ought to be thankful. After all, one can think of a number of his colleagues in the Cabinet who would certainly not be able to put their hands on their hearts and say that they had a prejudice against monopolies.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the non-party approach which stemmed from the 1944 White Paper. I think that it is true—I was not myself a Member of the House of Commons at the time, but I understand from reading the debates—that when the Act of 1948 was passed there was a somewhat non-party approach, or an inter-party approach, with some exceptions, in favour of this piecemeal and gradualist approach, with individual investigation of each case, as against the American method of sweeping blanket prohibition.
But this piecemeal approach was only accepted, so far as the then Government were concerned, or, at any rate, as far as most of the supporters were concerned, on two conditions; one of them that it would not be too gradualist and too slow, and the second, which follows from the first, that general legislation would follow at a not too distant date. My view, which I have held even more strongly as the months have gone by, is that these two assumptions are both now being falsified by events, and that the whole approach of the 1948 Act was probably a mistaken one. I think there is a very strong case for saying that we were


wrong and that the former Government were wrong, even with the best motives, and that we want something more effective than we are getting, even after the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman.
The whole position in this field is very disturbing indeed. It is a little over a year since we had a debate on monopolies; it was on 15th June last year, when a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed, even from the then Opposition side of the Committee, and even more strongly from the then Government side, with the slow progress that had been made. The position now is much more unsatisfactory than it was then. The Act was originally passed in 1948, and, since then, we have had only four Reports from the Commission and one Order made by the late Government following one of those Reports, and the prospect for the future is that of only two or three Reports a year for the indefinite future.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And it took two years to prepare the 1948 Act.

Mr. Crosland: Precisely; the whole process was started in 1946, and, in consideration of that fact, the rate of progress has been intolerably slow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) mentioned a calculation which I had made that, on this rate of progress, it would take 2,400 years to cover the whole of British industry in this process. Another calculation which I made last year was that, if one started walking round the world from Westminster at this speed, one would then have reached Uxbridge. After one more year, I suppose that we are now in the suburbs of Uxbridge.
It really is the case that, four years after the Act was passed, practically every single restrictive practice that was operating in 1948 is still operating today—almost without exception. This is particularly disturbing, in view of the fact that there has been for a long time past a great deal of agreement on what ought to be done.
The former President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—and I agree with my hon. Friend who interrupted to suggest that my own Government had not by any means a blameless record in this respect—as long ago as December, 1950,

when he was in office, said there was a case for a serious change in our approach; this was repeated by him in April, 1951, and repeated by his successor in June, 1951. We also have the promise in the Conservative Party election manifesto, and only now, 18 months after all this agreement on methods of dealing with some of the restrictions, has a small step been finally taken.
What makes the present inaction particularly disturbing is the fact that the present Government have completely dropped the former Government's proposal for the abolition of resale price maintenance. It was possible for us to be to some extent reassured under the late Government, even despite the general inactivity as far as monopolies are concerned, because we had hopes on this particular point of resale price maintenance, and we had been promised action, but even that has been dropped, and we have not got the prospect of such legislation to comfort us for the complete inaction and passivity on the general question of restrictive practices.
What makes it much more disturbing even than when the matter was discussed a year ago is that it has now become clear that the provisions in the Act for enforcement were extremely weak and need serious amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Is the hon. Gentleman's argument directed to new legislation, because if so, it is not in order?

Mr. Crosland: I entirely understand that, and most of what I am proposing can be dealt with in the framework of the existing Act. I believe that there is enormous scope for the intensification of the activities of the Monopolies Commission within the framework of the Act.
It has been generally agreed for some time past that some additional action was necessary. First, it was agreed that the working of the Commission must be speeded up, and to say that, if I may refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), implies no criticism of the Commission or of the personnel of the Commission whatever. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the efficiency and very creditable judicial quality of the work which they have done, but they were given an impossible task, and I think that some


fairly drastic re-organisation of the Commission and its work is necessary.
This was promised us some time ago by the President of the Board of Trade in the former Government. The right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Government today mentioned what he called a modified panel system, which does not sound a very impressive advance, because if there is to be no increase in the membership of the Commission, and no increase in the secretariat, it is rather hard to see how the work can be speeded up and made more effective with the same number of members and the same secretariat, even by dividing itself up into panels, as the President said.
I think it is quite clear that, if the Commission is to make more rapid progress, it needs a very large increase in its membership and particularly in the secretariat. The hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the absurd contrast between the staff of the Commission in this country and the staff of the Federal State Commission and the Department of Justice in the United States, and we are really toying with the problem if we think that 50 people in the secretariat of the Commission can deal with matters of this size. We shall clearly not get anywhere until we have a very large increase in the staff, so that simultaneous inquiries can be pursued. There was general agreement on that, but we have not had any statement on this point from the President of the Board of Trade today.
The second point on which there was wide agreement, even as long as a year ago, was that we should ask for inquiry into certain practices in different industries, so that the Commission, instead of taking one industry at a time, could report on certain practices that are followed in a number of industries. The practices which most people would agree we wanted them to investigate all come under the head of exclusive dealing and collective boycott, which have been referred to in every one of the four Reports and have been described in great detail.
They are known to exist very widely, and references have been made to them also in other reports, such as the Simon Report on building materials and the Lloyd Jacob Report on resale price maintenance. There is nothing new about it, and these are the practices which most people are agreed are the most damaging

both to industrial efficiency and to civil liberty.
These are the practices which can make it so difficult for a new firm to enter an industry, and for the more efficient firms to expand at the expense of others, and which obviously militate against new techniques, innovations and the like, and they are, as the Commission have pointed out, very serious restrictions on the individual. I think there is pretty general agreement—

Mr. Ellis Smith: They have a serious effect on the cost of production as well.

Mr. Crosland: There is fairly general agreement that these are the sort of practices on which we now have sufficient information to take further action. The President half agreed with this line of argument, and said that he accepted that a general reference to the Commission on this point should be made under Section 15. So far as that goes, we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; it is better than nothing, and it may produce something effective.
But I do not feel too optimistic about it. He was very vague about it all; he had not decided exactly what practices were going to be referred—they had not yet apparently been referred—to the Commission. It was a little tentative and hypothetical. In addition, the Commission are to have no extra staff or members. They already have seven reports on other monopolies on their hands, and it is hard to see how they can make a satisfactory report under Section 15 in the foreseeable future and at the same time consider the seven industries now before them.
I should have thought that this reference to a report under Section 15 would be a dead letter unless the membership and secretariat of the Commission were largely increased. I do not think that this proposal under Section 15—although we certainly welcome it as far as it goes—is by any means a complete solution to the problem. I believe that a good deal more needs to be done.
I now turn to the question of enforcement as opposed to future action. When the original Bill was being discussed in Committee it was agreed on both sides, to judge by reading the debates, that as and when the separate reports of the


Commission were made it would be perfectly proper and desirable for the Minister concerned to make an order so as to ensure that practices reported against by the Commission were discontinued.
We have now had some time to see whether this follow-up action is, in fact, effective. I suggest to the Committee that it is turning out to be quite ineffective. The first Report that the Commission made, as hon. Members know, was one on dental goods. An Order was finally made on dental goods by the late Government which, in effect, told the industry that the practices of exclusive dealing and collective boycott were to cease. This Order was laid before the House last summer.
I should like to hear a good deal more about what has happened in this industry, preferably from a representative of the Ministry of Health, none of whom, I am sorry to see, is present, because the information I have is that this Order has been very largely ineffective. The point of the order, as hon. Members know, was to make sure that independent firms outside the ring in this industry should be able to get supplies. That was the whole point of the Order. The information which I have had, and which I think a number of other hon. Members on this side have had, is that, despite the Order, it is still not possible for a number of small independent dealers in the industry to get supplies. It is most important that we should be given some reassurance on this point.
What appears to be happening is that although the Dental Association have scrubbed their rules and have said to the Government, "We have torn up all these elaborate regulations about collective boycott and exclusive dealing," nevertheless those things go on. I think the Committee ought to have a fairly clear answer from the Government spokesman who is to wind up this debate as to whether or not it is true that independent dealers in dental goods still cannot get supplies from the four largest manufacturers in the industry, who control 68 per cent. of the entire output of dental goods in this country.
If it is true, it means that the Order laid before the House last summer is already a dead letter. As some of us said about the Commission's Report at the time, it was naive of them to suppose

that all they had to do was to abolish collective boycott and exclusive dealing. It would also be interesting to take up the point mentioned by my hon. Friend in a Question as to whether or not the recommendation of the Commission in respect of dental goods, so fat as prices are concerned, has been carried out.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that specific recommendations were made about prices. I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has now arrived.

Mr. Robson Brown: On this question of the dental Report and the Commission's recommendations which the hon. Gentleman says were very simple, will he tell us what should have been done?

Mr. Crosland: I freely admit that I have not a perfectly clear answer to this. It was obviously worth trying this simple approach to see whether it worked or not. If my information is right, that it is not working because there is gentlemanly collusion, or whatever one may call it, going on even though the rules have nominally been torn up, then I cannot pretend to be absolutely clear in my own mind as to what action is really needed—except in regard to one point, that one cannot possibly enforce this type of regulation without a very much larger enforcement body than we have in the country at the moment. This seems to be the crucial contrast, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, between ourselves and the United States.

Mr. Reader Harris: Why is the hon. Gentleman so worried about the dental industry in view of the fact that the Commission said, after listening to all the various clauses in the rules:
These undesirable results are possible. How far they have occurred or have been avoided we have endeavoured to establish
They then said:
We have not found any very great abuse of the powers.…
If the Order is a dead letter, what great harm has been done?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think it worth while doing anything about monopoly. I have read the Report on dental goods, and it is quite true that in it the sentence which he has quoted appears. But it is also


true that in the last few pages of the Report the Commission say over and over again that certain practices operate against the public interest. I am not saying that if we abolish these practices we shall settle the dollar balance overnight. But the Commission say quite clearly in regard to dental and rain-water goods and electric lamps that, even though some of the practices have not been badly abused, they nevertheless have operated against the public interest. So much for dental goods, the question of which is much the most serious.

Mr. Robson Brown: I just want to say that I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying on the question of dental goods. I am not taking part in the debate, but I hope that some reply will be available to us from the Ministry of Health on this particular matter.

Mr. Crosland: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he has some knowledge of this particular industry about which I had a discussion with him some time ago.
I now pass to rain-water goods. In their case a number of recommendations were made by the Commission. The only Government statement we have had on rain-water goods was from the Minister of Works, who said that he had received assurances from the industry that certain changes in their regulations were going to be made. But it really is intolerable that the Committee should be left with the vague statement that the industry have given certain assurances. We must surely be told what the assurances are, and what new arrangement is to be made, as otherwise we cannot possibly judge how effective the action has been.
I very much hope that whoever replies to this debate will give us some exact information about what assurances have been given and in what way the activities of the trade association in that case are going to he altered.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): May I answer that point? Some new rules have been made by that trade association which have been submitted to my right hon. Friend. They are acceptable to the Ministry of Works at the present time, and the working of them is being watched.

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful for that so far as it goes, but I still think that the Committee ought to know what they are at some future date. It may be that we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whose bona fides obviously we do not doubt in the slightest, or from the Minister of Works, who I hope is not so busy with the Coronation arrangements that he has forgotten his previous enthusiasm for competition. We cannot judge how effective all this is unless the Committee are told. I hope that when the negotiations are completed we shall be given rather more detailed information of what is going on.
I also hope to hear from the Government spokesman why, in the case of electric lamp manufacturers, one of the recommendations—on accumulated quantity rebates—was not accepted. We have not been informed so far why this recommendation, on a matter which has nothing to do with economies on bulk ordering but is a method of enforcing a certain type of exclusive dealing, was not accepted. On the basis of our experience during the last year, it seems to me beyond doubt that the enforcement provisions of the Act have failed in practice.
Obviously in the case of dental goods, and probably so far as the other two cases are concerned, nothing very much has changed or is going to change; and we must have some new action so far as enforcement is concerned. One obvious change which I think the President, or any President, ought to be sympathetic about is that the responsibility for enforcing the recommendations of the Commission should be concentrated in the hands of one Department. It seems to me absurd that one Report is enforced by the Minister of Health, the next by the Minister of Works and the third by the Minister of Supply and the fourth by I forget who, and that none is enforced by the President of the Board of Trade.
I do not see that there is the slightest chance of securing an efficient body of enforcement officers to see that the recommendations are carried out when the responsibility for enforcement is diffused among, I believe, nine different Ministers. I should have thought that that was a nonsensical situation. I agree that we were responsible for it when we were in power, but in the light of experience


I believe that it is a thing which should be ended now.
Taking up the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheadle, we cannot pretend to treat this matter seriously as long as we have as small an enforcement body as we have now. It lacks teeth. The Department lacks a large body of people who have this one responsibility to see that these recommendations are carried out. This is the main reason why American anti-monopoly action has been more successful than ours ever looks like being. It is not that their Acts are much more successful—they look to me sometimes more foolish. It is that their enforcement department is far more efficient than ours is in present circumstances.
Another point which I should like to put to the Minister is that one of the difficulties in this whole matter is that our information about where monopoly exists is surprisingly small. The Board of Trade naturally must have this information, because without it they do not know what industries to refer to the Commission in the first place. In any event, the public and this Committee ought to have as much information as possible about how widespread monopoly is in Britain, because we do not know at the moment. The only official study ever carried out in this country of the distribution of financial ownership and control of industry was that carried out in 1944 by Leak and Maizels under the auspices of the Board of Trade. But conditions in industry must have changed since then, and there is no reason to believe that the picture today is the same as it was in 1944.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—and I suggest that it is a very important point indeed—whether he would consider giving the authority of his Department for a further investigation on the Leak and Maizels lines to be carried out now. He knows that this detailed information about the financial ownership and control of industry which is required cannot be obtained from the Census of Production. Unless, therefore, he is willing to initiate a further investigation on those lines in view of all that is changing in the postwar world, we shall go on in our present condition of ignorance.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And among the trade associations as well.

Mr. Crosland: And among them as well.
The 1948 Act, despite all the high hopes set on it, has proved in practice something of a failure. I believe that we must start now with a new approach. I do not believe now—I tended to believe it a year ago but experience of the last year has convinced me otherwise—that merely to make reference under Section 15, although that is better than nothing, can possibly speed up all this work to a sufficient and satisfactory point. I am certain that a new approach is now needed, though I cannot go into detail without putting myself out of order.
We are grateful to the President for the small concession he has made this afternoon, but it is clear from his speech that, despite all the fine words of the party opposite in their manifesto and the magnificent speeches of the Home Secretary in the House about his determination to protect the consumer, no effective action whatever will come from the present Government. It is clear that the promises in their manifesto and in the King's Speech are going on the bonfire with many others of a similar kind. Speaking for myself—and I imagine that most of my hon. Friends would agree—it is clear that if this is all the Government have to announce after having eight months to think about it, then nothing very effective will be done about monopoly as long as they are in power

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) thought it right to inform the Committee that he had appeared as a witness before the Commission, and I think it right to inform the Committee that I have appeared professionally before the Commission and have drawn some experience of the work of the Commission from that point of view. I hope that it is possible that that direct experience may enable me to make some useful comments to the Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) that really no blame can be attached to the Commission for any suggested delay. Indeed, I would go very much further than that and say, with respect, that the


Members of the Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Carter, and the permanent staff have been most conscientious and painstaking in carrying out their tasks, and they have been considerate to the industries under review and to those who have appeared before them.
I know that this question of delay is one which concerns very many people. Most of the speeches made in this Committee so far have regretted that so much time has passed between the reference of a particular industry by the Board of Trade and the publication of the Report. Here again, in my view there is not much cause to be surprised at that delay under the existing arrangements. The example of the electric lamp industry has been referred to at length, and when one has seen something of the volume of work involved in that case it is not really surprising that the task took over two years.
For the proper understanding of the problem, the Commission thought it right to look at the history of the last 70 years. They examined and scrutinised what I suppose were many thousands of documents, agreements, memoranda and minutes and, as they have said in their Report, they consulted a great number of bodies—35 are named and others are not—including local authorities and organisations of all kinds. I need not refer to them; they appear in the Report upon this subject. When it emerged, the Report covered over 200 pages, and I think that everyone who has read it must take the view that it is a most useful and thorough Report and it is not surprising, in the circumstances, that it took so long to produce.
As has been said, a new method of dividing the Commission into panels has been adopted.

Mr. John Edwards: When he talks about a new method, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether he means something recent or the arrangements that go back to the middle of 1951?

Mr. Nield: I meant the 1951 arrangements. I think that the idea emanated from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South in his speech in June, 1951, which I have re-read. A suggestion was put out that the Commission should be divided into panels. The hon. Member

for Gloucestershire, South nods his assent, but the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough seems to disagree.

Mr. Edwards: I think it is important to get this matter settled because I shall want to return to it later on, in view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said. My impression was that in the debate in June, 1951, the then President of the Board of Trade announced this arrangement as something that was either going to be put into operation or had already been put into operation. That is why I think it is important to clear up this matter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I should like to be clear about this question of panels. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that it is proposed that the Commission should sit in divisions, just as the Industrial Court does? The term "panel" is quite a neutral one. There may be a panel of one or two people merely to look at and examine a question. That is quite a different thing from a Commission sitting in several divisions simultaneously.

Mr. Nield: I have been asked two questions which I shall try to deal with in order. The first one related to the date when the panel system was adopted and also to the authorship of the idea. I have been very kindly handed an extract from the speech which the then President of the Board of Trade made on 15th June, 1951. It is possible that I am wrong about the authorship. The President said:
There are various methods of improvement which we shall have to examine and discuss. One possibility, towards which, without in any way committing myself, I am at present inclined to lean, would be to increase both the whole-time and part-time membership of the Commission, so that the Commission could sit in several divisions; each one under a whole-time chairman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 2752.]
In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman I would say that I do not think that has been the position. As I understand it, what has happened—and I must be forgiven if I do not know the date—is that the members of the Commission divided themselves into small committees of three or four members to undertake the initial inquiries and investigations into particular industries.


There would be several industries being investigated simultaneously, but eventually the whole Commission would have to sit upon the final consideration of the matter and make their report. Therefore, the suggestion that was then made was a new one—about which we may be told—that there might perhaps be adopted a division system whereby only some members of the Commission would deal with each industry.

Mr. George Darling: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that it might be a good thing for the facts that are deduced by the Commission's staff to be published before the final report appears, so that we might get hold of them without having to wait so long?

Mr. Nield: I should be against that proposal, largely for the reason that in the later stages of each inquiry there is what is usually regarded as the full hearing by the Commission, when the final case for the industry is presented, and it very often happens, judging from my own experience, that further questions are asked, and those who seek to answer them may take a little time and there may have to be another hearing: so the thing must build up until the final situation presents itself. I say that particularly in seeking to answer the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Presenting a case before the Commission is not the same as it is in the courts. One is almost in the position of being a mouthpiece in giving evidence about the affairs of the industry. That evidence is constantly being produced until the very last moment.
I come now to a point which I hope will be regarded as one of substance. Though it has not so far been mentioned today, it has been touched upon in other debates upon this important subject. My chief criticism of the Commission is that it bears the wrong title. It is called the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. My submission, made as forcibly as I can, is that the use of the word "Monopolies" is a misuse of language in this connection and is harmful to our industry, particularly in the eyes of persons and bodies abroad.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked, by way of a rhetorical question, if we could be told the extent of

monopoly in this country. I should say that if one uses the word correctly, the answer is, none, apart from the State monopolies. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who is making noises of disagreement, must listen to my argument before he does so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have too great a respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, having heard his contributions on many occasions, not to listen to him carefully.

Mr. Nield: I did not mean that the hon. Member was not listening. What I wanted to be allowed to do was to develop my argument so that he could then tell me if I were wrong. When I say that this is a misuse of language, I think that is really correct. I took the trouble to look up the word "monopoly" in Webster's Dictionary.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of order. I want to be quite clear about this point, because I may want to follow it myself. Would not the changing of the name "monopoly" require legislation? I should like to know because I may want to pursue the point afterwards.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Nield: I was about to read the definition which I had taken from Webster. Monopoly means this:
The sole power of vending any species of goods obtained either by engrossing the articles in market by purchase, or by a licence from the Government confirming this privilege.
An early example of what is called State monopoly was the Charter to the East India Company giving the exclusive right to trade with the East Indies. A modern example of State monopoly is the Post Office.
But again, there is this definition. According to Murray, a monopoly is the
exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise; the condition of having no competition in the sale of some commodity or in the exercise of some trade or business.
This is a perfectly valid point. In the light of the provisions of the statute, I submit that none of these industries can properly be called monopolies and the Commission ought not to be called the Monopolies Commission.
I must not weary the Committee, and I am sure that all hon. Members present


will be aware of the particular provisions of the statute which I have in mind. The position is that, before an industry can be referred to the Commission, it must be shown that at least a third of the goods in the United Kingdom are supplied by one, or two or more acting together. In each of those cases there is still a substantial body of competition. They are not the sole vendors and they have not the exclusive right, and they do not even have to be required to have a majority of the particular business.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been extremely courteous in giving way to interruptions; I wonder if I might ask him this question. He is developing a very interesting point. Would he not agree that the industries with which we are normally concerned fall neither into the category of monopoly as he has correctly defined it, as one single seller, nor into the category of free competition, but into a third category where we have a number of sellers who are not competing against one another?

Mr. Nield: That may very well be the situation, that it does not fall exactly into either category. That raises yet another important question as to the right of traders to associate when they deal possibly with buyers or suppliers who themselves have an exclusive right. I am thinking of the British Electricity Authority.
May I pass to the second of my reasons for objecting to this word in the title? I have suggested that it is harmful to our industry, especially abroad. The Committee will remember that under the Havana Charter, and, indeed, other international arrangements, the signatories agreed that each country concerned should take steps to discourage monopolistic tendencies and to put down harmful restrictive practices. I have no doubt at all that eyes abroad watch with care for signs of any monopolistic tendencies or harmful restrictive practices.
I was shown the other day a cutting from a newspaper published in South Africa which had a bold heading: "Such and such organisation declared a monopoly"—I obviously should not identify it—in truth and in fact, what had happened was that the affairs of that organisation had been investigated by a

body calling itself the Monopolies Commission. The organisation was not declared a monopoly. It was merely recommended that certain of its practices should be altered. That is, or may be, very harmful to our industry.
I am speaking a little longer than I intended, although some of my time has been spent answering questions by others, which I am glad to have tried to do. It may be easy to say that this is a small point of nomenclature: that Parliament decided this only four years ago and it is rather difficult to alter things now, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to what I have been saying. My final words on this part of my remarks are these: I wonder why we should by implication brand British industry as being riddled with monopolies when in fact, as I have sought to point out, there are probably none, except the State monopolies.
May I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) as to the actual procedure of the Commission and the disclosure of evidence? It is a matter which I think should be looked at for this reason. When an industry appears before the Commission, allegations are often made against it. People write to the Commission, and it is only just that an industry which is under review should know the charges brought against it and should be able to refute them if 'possible. That does not always happen. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said that when he gave evidence he was asked if he minded his evidence being passed on. If he had said, "Yes, I do," it would not have been passed on. I think that an example of this sort is important.
The things which people write in about most, as I understand it, according to the last Annual Report, are that they are not allowed to be on an approved list, or that a concern has been unjustly refused membership of an association. The industry that is called before the Commission cannot deal with those allegations unless it knows what they are.
Under Section 8 of the Act, the Commission makes its own rules of procedure. I think that is right. There are on the Commission a number of eminent, distinguished and public-spirited people, and


it is right that they should make their own rules of procedure. Under Section 8, the President has a right to issue directions about the procedure. I am told on inquiry that none have been issued. I do not suggest that they should be, but I would ask that this matter of disclosing what may be serious charges against an industry should be further considered.
As to the work of the Commission on the initial issue of deciding whether the conditions to which the Act applies prevail, I do not say that it is easy, but it is mechanical, arithmetical, statistical. It is the second issue which is crucial, namely, whether any particular practice operates or is expected to operate against the public interest. All hon. Members will recall our discussions, when we inserted Section 14 into the Act, making some attempt to define "public interest." It is in that field that the decisions or recommendations of the Commission are tremendously important and far-reaching, because what we all want is a recovery of our prosperity.
After all, "public interest" means the interest of the public—not a section of the public. Consumers, users, persons employed, distributors, manufacturers—all are the public, and that is the interest which has to be considered. It is in these circumstances that I very much hope the Committee's attitude today will indicate support and encouragement for the Commission in the exercise of their functions.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: We have had a very interesting dissertation—and I hope that word will not be taken as disrespectful—on the subject of the word "monopoly." The actual words in the Title, I notice, are:
any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions.
think it would be splitting hairs to suggest that the use of the word "monopoly" was inappropriate when we really mean monopolistic tendencies or conditions of monopoly. As regards the effect on persons overseas, I am somewhat impressed by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), and it may be that that requires serious consideration. However, perhaps he will forgive me if I do not pursue that further.
In listening to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I gathered that the burden of his complaint was that the present Government, in the eight months in which they have been in office, had failed to carry out what the last Administration failed to carry out in a period of six years. While I am not here to defend Her Majesty's Government, that particular form of criticism does seem to me rather illogical.
On the other hand, perhaps I am being a little ungrateful, because when the last debate took place on this subject the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross)—and I am sorry we do not see him in the Chamber now as often as we did in the last Parliament—paid an unexpected tribute to the Liberal Party when he referred to our
consistent and progressive tradition
and the efforts we had made
to promote intelligent and progressive views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 2747]
I should have been happier if that tribute and the expression of good intentions which accompanied it had been made earlier in that period of six years of Socialist administration. I should have been more impressed if during that period of six years something more effective had been placed on the Statute Book than the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948.
The experience we have gained during the three years since the Commission was set up has justified many of the criticisms which were put forward at the time that Act was passed. I realise that I should be out of order in suggesting legislation, but perhaps I might say, in passing, that I and my colleagues have always held the view—we held this view before the war as well as since—that a Commission of this nature could not perform its functions satisfactorily unless there was also a body of law of a comprehensive nature laying down certain general principles and defining what is or is not permissible. At present we have not got that body of law, and the Commission works at a disadvantage. It is expected to decide what is against the public interest, which it is very difficult for any Commission to decide.
Furthermore, there would seem to be three main flaws in the existing procedure.


In the first place, it is capricious. I do not suggest for one moment that the members of the Commission act in a way that is capricious. What I mean is that there is an element of chance as to what particular industry will be investigated. The Board of Trade may decide upon an investigation into a particular industry, or a particular trade association.
As a result of the investigation an Order may or may not be made. If such an Order is made, it will, no doubt, forbid certain forms of restriction in that particular industry. But in other industries precisely the same form of restrictive practices may continue unaltered and undisturbed. What is illegal in one industry is legal in another. Or again, it may be that the Minister will be content with mere assurances, as in the case that has already been mentioned during this debate.
On the subject of the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association, the "Manchester Guardian" had an interesting comment to make in a leading article on 20th May, 1952. The article began with these words:
The Conservative manifesto of the last election promised us a greatly strengthened Monopolies Commission to seek, and enable Parliament to correct, any operations in restraint of trade. Mr. Duncan Sandys appears to think that assurances of good behaviour are sufficient to redeem this pledge. The rest of the world may be a little sceptical.
The article concludes:
Both this and the last Government seem to have accepted the conclusions of the Lloyd Jacob Committee that collective or group sanctions to maintain retail prices are to be condemned. If they are bad when practised by dental manufacturers and disapproved of in the sale of electric lamps, why are they not made generally illegal? Surely this would be one useful step towards 'setting the people free'.
I believe that this hit-and-miss method is hound to be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, it is unfair to industry, since manufacturers, distributors and retailers are in a state of uncertainty as to what is or will be permitted, and as to whether an Order which is made in the case of a particular trade association will or will not be applied to another trade association.
The second flaw, as I see it, is the problem of the time factor, to which other hon. Members have already referred. It would appear to me

impossible to cover all the ground within a reasonable space of time. Personally, I calculate that it would take 50 years to do all that is required, assuming that we followed the existing procedure at the present rate of progress. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) referred to that very well-known investigation by Mr. Leak. Mr. Leak read a paper to the Royal Statistical Society on 20th February, 1945, and he listed 118 representative commodities, sufficient to
reveal the widespread nature of monopoly production,
each of which was in 1935
either wholly or in effect the monopoly of one or two firms.
Now, there is no evidence to suggest that in the intervening years there has been any marked change towards greater freedom. Probably, the tendency has been in the other direction. Therefore, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it would take a period of 50 years. It would certainly take a very long time to cover all the ground by the existing methods.
Thirdly, there is today no clear distinction between legislation, investigation and the enforcement of the law by the judiciary. I think that I should probably be out of order in pursuing that point, but at the present time the three functions are all mixed up.
I agree that within certain limits the Commission has performed and is performing a very useful purpose, and I welcome the decision of the Minister to extend its work. But I believe that its success is not so much due to the effectiveness of the few Orders that have been made—and I have not the same enthusiasm as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South for the procedure of making Orders against this, that and the other trade association. I believe that the value of the work of the Commission is to be found not so much in that procedure as in the publicity which results from an investigation taking place.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And no action?

Mr. Wade: On this subject there was a very interesting comment in the "Financial Times" on 14th November, 1951. If hon. Members will bear with me I will read part of the leading article.


It referred to the subject of electric lamps. It said:
General service electric lamps provide one of the few examples of goods whose price has been substantially reduced since before the war. The index of retail prices for lamps, which stood at 100 in 1924 had receded to 58 by 1938. Reductions of price brought it to 42 in 1945 and 36 in 1949. Those reductions at a time of rising costs naturally resulted in sharp falls in profit margins. What is significant, however, is that both these reductions in prices were made as the consequence of publicity. In the first instance there had been an investigation by the Board of Trade into the costs of four members of E.L.M.A.; in the second instance the reduction was made for 'political' reasons—political 'in the sense that it [the reduction] was intended to meet public opinion which was hostile at the time because of criticism—in E.L.M.A.'s opinion unfair criticism—publicly directed against the E.L.M.A. and its methods'.
The writer of the article goes on to point out that it was publicity which encouraged the Association to liberalise its rules.
This single fact surely points to one of the ways along which the Government should now act.
That was a further interesting observation, which, I think, is very true.
The fundamental difficulty that many observers have felt about Associations of Manufacturers, however beneficial their operations may be, is that they are in the end responsible to no one but their members. They have power, not exactly without responsibility—indeed successive reports by the Monopolies Commission show them to be acting with considerable sense of responsibility—but without the automatic responsibility which is enforced by publicity. The existence of the Monopolies Commission itself is a first attempt to remedy this state of affairs. The next logical step is to require certain associations to lodge annual reports with the Commission, giving the kind of statistics about regulations, prices, and profits, which the present inquiry has elicited from the E.L.M.A.
I cannot go into the remedies which I should like to suggest without embarking on a realm which is out of order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman go this far? When we have a Labour Government in future, and take action, will he support it?

Mr. Wade: I think it only fair that I should examine the remedies proposed. If I were to find that they were along the lines that I have been advocating for many years, I should most certainly support them.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves

E.L.M.A., I would point out that he has given an erroneous impression of the causes of price reduction since 1935. The principal cause, of course, is the enormous increase of production, which is the logical concomitant of a wide increase of electrification. That is the principal cause of the reduction.

Mr. Wade: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was reading from the "Financial Times," and the view that I am putting forward—which I still think is true—is that publicity has its value.

Mr. Nabarro: It is only a contribution. It is not the whole cause.

Mr. Wade: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up the matter with the editor of the "Financial Times." The filing of certain essential information, thus making available facts which at present are not generally known, would be of value both to Parliament and to the general public.
In the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens, to which I have already referred, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I rejoice to think that it falls to our lot"—
he was a little premature in this—
to carry out a policy which the Liberals have long supported and on which they have helped to create an increasingly informed public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June; 1951; Vol. 488, c. 2747.]
I hope we have helped to create an informed public opinion, but I am not sure that the public is yet well informed. There are plenty of generalisations, and there is a general feeling that all is not as it should be, but the general public do not know the essential facts, and the Monopolies Commission can help considerably in making the facts known.
I think it would also be a step in the right direction, so far as trade associations are concerned, if they were required to be registered; and if they were all called upon, as I have suggested, to lodge annual reports to provide certain vital information as to the restrictions imposed on their members, which, directly or indirectly, must affect the general public. It would still remain the duty of Parliament to lay down the law. I think that that proposal is particularly important in the case of such practices as the collective


boycott and exclusive dealing, which have been referred to by many hon. Members during this debate.
Then, again, I think the procedure may be altered in another respect. There is a way which would help to get over the problem of the time factor and the vast amount of work which the Commission would have to perform if it were to cover all the ground. Assuming that Parliament considers certain practices not necessarily bad in all cases, then, instead of the Commission's making an inquiry at the request of the President of the Board of Trade and then issuing a report followed by an order, it would be better if the procedure were the other way round—if certain practices were regarded as illegal unless the trade association obtained the consent of the President of the Board of Trade.
I think that that would simplify matters, and make it possible for the Commission to perform its duties. I support the view that the scope of the Commission's work might be extended. I cannot see any logical reason for excluding State monopolies—

Mr. Nabarro: True Liberalism

Mr. Wade: —but I do not propose to pursue that, as I believe other hon. Members will be dealing with it in this debate.
Let me make two general observations in conclusion. This is a matter of grave importance in the first place because it inevitably affects the cost of living, and there was no time when the subject of the cost of living was of greater urgency and importance than it is today. But there is another reason why it is important—perhaps, even more fundamental, particularly to those of us who believe that there is value in private enterprise and private ownership of property. In fact, it is we who should be more concerned about the problem of monopoly than those who take the Socialist view.
I do not believe that those who adopt these practices do so out of evil, antisocial motives. I think that in most cases it is the desire for security—some form of security against too keen competition. I think that to be the underlying reason. But there is very grave danger in going too far along that path towards security, and fair, assured profits, and so forth. After all, the ownership of property

carries with it certain risks and responsibilities, and the case for private enterprise and private ownership in industry is that there are those risks and responsibilities. If we travel too far along the road to-words security we shall eventually be told that we have removed all the attributes of private ownership, and we shall be told that there is no point any more in permitting private ownership in industry.
Therefore, it is we who favour private ownership who ought to be most concerned. I might put it in another way. There are two dangers. One is the danger arising from the zeal of the collectivists, and the other is the danger created by restrictionists and monopoly capitalists appearing in the guise of the defenders of free enterprise.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I do not think that any of us would take exception to the sentiments with which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) ended his speech. He made one important observation at that point which is profoundly true. In spite of what has been said in this debate, very few of the trade practices which we have been discussing stem from evil intentions. I think it was a mistake for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who, at the beginning of his speech, referred to people convicted of a whole series of gross and anti-social malpractices. He exaggerated the evils of what we have under review today.
Most hon. Members have paid tribute to the work of the Monopolies Commission, and I should like to do that, too, because, whatever criticism we may have to make, and however disappointing our expectations may be as to what has been produced, this is no reflection upon the conscientious and assiduous way in which the members of the Commission have performed their duties. As the President of the Board of Trade said, their work is of a high judicial character. I consider that they were given a difficult brief. I had no responsibility for it at the time, and I think that it was no less difficult because there was a broad measure of agreement on both sides of the Committee as to what they should do and how they should set about it.
No one who has read the four published Reports which the Commission have produced can suggest any lack of zeal or diligence in their investigations. Some people suggest that four large Reports in 40 months is not all it might be. But if they were added together and were the accumulated work of a Royal Commission we should all consider that the Royal Commission had done a good job in the time. Nor, contrary to some suggestions in this debate, do I think that there is very much in the published Reports for party recrimination. This Measure was agreed. If the Commission have lacked effectiveness, they have lacked it over a period for three-quarters of which the other side were responsible.
We had a debate initiated a year ago by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). I heard his speech on that occasion, and I heard it again today. There was some contrast between the attitude he adopted when his party were responsible for the adoption of this Act and the attitude he adopted today. The tone set last year by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South was well laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, apropos of the speed at which the Commission has worked,
… each of these inquiries demands the most scrupulous examination and consideration of a very large mass of evidence … in view of the importance of the matters to be dealt with it would be wrong if thoroughness were to be sacrificed to speed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December. 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1322.]
That was an agreed sentiment about the work of the Commission up to tonight, and I do not think that we ought to go back on it today.
I, personally, have always had some doubt whether the Commission, as then constituted—and they have not been increased appreciably in numbers; I think from seven to the statutory maximum of 10—would achieve the whole purpose which they were originally intended to fulfil. They have been set to deal on a very narrow front with a most difficult and complex problem—probably more complex than was ever conceived when the 1948 Act was under discussion. I think that the most solid conclusion that their labours have produced is that we

did not originally set the Commission along entirely correct lines.
Before we are asked to consider any fresh machinery within the scope of the present Act—I am not discussing fresh legislation—I think that there ought to be some hard-thinking about exactly what we now intend the Commission to achieve in the light of the experience of the last 40 months. I am not sure that there has been enough hard-thinking on those lines, not only in the Board of Trade but outside the Board of Trade, where these things should be freely and openly discussed, as there might be.
It was widely felt when this Commission was set up that they would have to deal with substantial, fundamental evils in our industrial set-up. I want at this point to quote a remark from the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, who has considerable knowledge of this matter. He ended by asking the President of the Board of Trade if we could be told a little more about how widespread the practices under review were. He added, "We simply do not know." I think that is true. I think that the excellent work done in connection with the four industries on which we have had Reports has still not enlarged our knowledge as to how widespread these practices are.
I think that a little more study and fewer sweeping generalisations with which people are apt to approach this subject would be a good thing. I am not saying that evils have not already been found; of course they have. Specific or potential malpractices have been uncovered. I would add that very few trades or institutions or professions would survive the scrutiny given by this Commission and come out of it without something slightly "fishy" being discovered about them.

Mr. G. Darling: Would the hon. Gentleman, who is associated with the industry, agree that the distribution of newspapers would come under the category which he has just described?

Mr. Deedes: We had a Royal Commission of our own, and it would be outside the scope of this discussion to comment on their findings.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not a fact that this Act deals only with manufacture and not with the distribution services?

Mr. Deedes: I am not going to embark on the wider field opened up by the hon. Member opposite. I do not condone such practices as have been uncovered. All I suggest is that hon. Members should be careful in making sweeping generalisations about how widespread they are, particularly in view of upholding the good name of our industries, not only in this country but in the world at large.
A question which we should be asking is: How far has this inquiry touched a fundamental problem in trade and industry? My answer would be: To a much less significant extent than was thought at the time. It is appropriate here to scrutinise the criteria which the former President of the Board of Trade applied, when introducing the Bill, on the subject of public interest. No one was able to define public interest. The Government of the day apologised for not being able to produce a definition. What the right hon. Member for Huyton said was:
… the over-riding test of the effect of a restriction on the public interest is this: does it make the job of selling British goods in world markets easier or more difficult? The second test is, in my view: Does it result, in the long run, in the consumer getting more of the goods he wants more cheaply.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 2036.]
We might ask, now: How far has the Commission smoothed the path towards achieving these two objectives? If one asks that question and looks at the result, one finds the answer disappointing. Along the lines we are proceeding now, I doubt whether it will be ever anything else but slightly disappointing. We have long been led to believe that monopoly is a major factor in our post-war industrial decline. That is a sentiment which lends itself to resounding political observations, and they have been made. There is a fine, crusading spirit about the suggestion that this is at the root of our industrial difficulties. There is a tendency, however, grossly to over-simplify the problem. I think it is possible, although much less attractive politically, to make out quite a strong case in the opposite direction.
Sir Henry Clay, an authority on the subject, has pointed out that between the wars our principal competitors, Germany, Poland, Belgium and France, were more cartel-minded than we were and that some industries known to be guilty of

monopolistic practices have sometimes been among the most successful and progressive, and some pursuing more independence and less co-operation than others have been less successful and much less stable. The cotton industry has at times shown that trend. As the President of the Board of Trade said, there is about this an atmosphere of "different times, different customs"; fashions tend to change and what at one moment appears to be a good thing seems some years later to be very bad. I am not now arguing the rights or wrongs of the practices, but am saying that the subject is probably more complex than we thought when we set the Commission their job. The subject does not lend itself to a simple formula of detection, judgment and punishment.
My right hon. Friend will find difficulty in presenting legislation to meet any special condition or atmosphere of economic circumstances. The legislation that we pass has to meet economic circumstances at all times, good or bad, and we must devise legislation which stands the test at all times. Although it is attempted, it is wrong to try to apply special measures to special circumstances. There is no case for pretending that this subject of monopoly represents a black spot in an otherwise immaculate economy. I do not propose to deal with the nationalised industries, but I would say, in passing, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Huyton wanted to include the nationalised industries in the Act.
There are two things which we must now do. We must consider the field of monopoly for which the Commission are responsible against the background of the climate of industrial and economic policy in a general sense more generously than we have done in the past and we must also make sure that the machinery devised to check abuses does not in turn, and in a different sense, render us guilty of serious constitutional abuses. I see trends in that direction in some of the proposed solutions. To take the first point, against that background we find extraordinary paradoxes when we try to make out that industrial monopolists are a different breed from anyone else.
Although exclusive dealing backed by boycott is condemned, the "closed shop"


still has some support in some places. We find differential prices being chased by the Commission, but they are the basis of many railway and electricity charges. Quotas evoke adverse criticism, but they have been, and still are in part, a basis of our horticultural import policy and have a considerable amount to do with the Marketing Acts. The artificial economy contrived by some industries is condemned because it conceals economic realities, but such conditions have applied, and still apply, widely to much of the agricultural economy. It is wrong to try to make out that it is improper for business to do what Governments consider they have a right to do.
As Sir Henry Clay said some time ago, a manufacturer buys his labour from an organised monopolist—a trade union—his coal or other power from Government monopolies, his railway transport from another Government monopoly, his raw materials at world prices, which are often sheltered from the full force of competition by Government support. That is the background against which we should now try to consider the problem more broadly than in the past.
I repeat that I do not condone the practices uncovered, but the Commission have found them most effectively camouflaged because the background of much of the Government controlled economy is precisely the same colour. That is one of the Commission's difficulties in rooting out some practices alleged against industry. It has also been made clear that some practices have arisen from the equal evil of excessive taxation and difficulties about capital re-equipment. We have a certain responsibility in this. Many of the evils arise from a greater evil. I am suggesting not that the hunt should be called off, but that we should keep a sense of perspective when joining in the hunt.
With regard to abuses in the constitutional sense which might arise in the operation of the Commission, I have never been happy that the House or the Commission were absolutely certain what they were pursuing or what they would do with the quarry when they had caught it, and I am even less happy about the methods of the pursuit. The Commission have been required to be counsel for the prosecution, jury and

judge. In each specific case their powers have been extremely wide, and yet the orbit of the inquiry has been incredibly narrow. The results have been unfortunate.
The Commission are required to examine matters reported to the Board of Trade. Reported by whom? We have never been told. In what order are they reported and taken up by the Board of Trade or by the Commission? As it is reported on and dealt with, each case is subject to an Order in this House. We have had one already. I believe this to be unfortunate example of delegated legislation. The Board of Trade's Report gives the future programme of events and takes two pages to cover the list of industries which may be considered. Who decides the order in which those industries are to be taken? Up to now it seemed a matter of chance. Whose head goes on the block next is really a fortuitous circumstance. It is a matter of "this year, next year or in 1975 it may be our turn." That is a most unfortunate background. Even if the Commission is to turn from specific industries to specific practices, the order of batting needs to be more clearly defined.
The procedure was defended by the right hon. Member for Huyton, on Second Reading, when he said that cases which might appear to be quite small in their initial effect would serve as test cases on which the Commission might be able to build up a useful case law. What sort of case law? Surely not case law which any lawyer would accept. The Commission have spent three years building up case law, but I doubt if any judge or jury would look at it. There is some confusion about what the Commission are building up in the way of legal precedents and what we shall do with the precedents when we have them. I should like further reassurances on that from my right hon. Friend.
Broadly, I warmly welcome the prospect of a slight turn in the course pursued by the Commission from particular industries to particular practices. We must all admit that the 1948 Act was imperfect and that its errors are now perceived, and we are now prepared to seek on broader, wiser and more realistic lines other solutions which bear a closer relation to the industrial problems which today beset us.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: There is much with which I agree in the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), particularly when he suggested that the order of priority of investigation of the industries alleged to have malpractices should be considered in the light of recent experience. I hope we shall have some information about that from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies.
I agree with the last statement made by the hon. Member that the Monopolies Act is obviously not perfect, and there seems to be general agreement in the Committee about that. Not only that but, if I may just get out of order for one second, in all three parties represented in this Committee there is agreement that there should be legislation to strengthen the Monopolies Act. I know that it is out of order to discuss legislation now, but the prospect of strengthening legislation should be at the back of our minds in this debate, because if we fail to get what we want from the present Act, then if we are to carry out the promises made by all three parties, new legislation will have to come along.
I think I may say—not with hindsight, because I said so at the time—that the Monopolies Bill had serious weaknesses. I was not in the House at the time when the Bill was passing through, so I did not express my views here; I was not under any party discipline and I was able to express my views outside perhaps more forcibly. It seems to me that when the Bill was introduced the Government did not pay sufficient attention to legislation in other countries on the same subject. The monopoly legislation and the restrictive practices legislation in the United States, Canada, Sweden and elsewhere revealed the weaknesses now apparent in the present Act, and had been dealt with in legislation in these other countries.
The first weakness we ought to consider is that of what I might call time—the appalling amount of time it takes to start an inquiry, to publish the facts, to publish the report and to get some consideration of the facts. We have the prospect of getting six reports in four years, and at that rate of progress it will take a long time to cover all the malpractices in industry. There is another serious weak-

ness in this question of time. When the Bill was being discussed in Committee, it was stated by a number of hon. Members that the publicity which was being given would tend to scare those people in industry who were indulging in objectionable practices; the fact that there might be investigations would lead them to stop the practices.
Having seen the Commission at work, 99 per cent. of the trades and industries in the country that are resorting to objectionable practices have got nothing to fear, because it is a hundred-to-one chance against any single one of them being investigated during the next 10 years. It is largely because of that that the Act has become the very weak instrument that it is, instead of being the scarifying influence that it ought to be. It ought by now to have scared quite a number of trade associations, industries and firms into better behaviour, but it has failed to do that. Industry realises that because of the time factor it has very little to fear in the way of an investigation.
We have to consider how we can strengthen the Commission within the present Act without going outside it, because the topic of new legislation is out of order in this debate. It seems to me—and this is where I differ from the President of the Board of Trade when he spoke about the working of the Commission—that the job of the Commission has got to be very clearly divided into two parts. One is purely fact-finding. I think that when the facts have been ascertained they ought to be published quickly without any comment or suggestion of what action should be taken. That is one way of dealing with this question of time.
It is true that when the trade association or firm, which has been referred to the Commission and about whom the facts are being published, read the facts, they will make statements in print and in public alleging that many of them are not quite as the Commission has, in fact, reported. That does not matter. We shall be beginning a public discussion of the facts. There is not sufficient public discussion of monopolies and restrictive practices in this country. But the Board of Trade is making a profound mistake if it thinks it can carry out the spirit of this legislation by not giving us the full


facts about any action that it is proposed to take, because this is where the scarifying influence comes in. I think we ought to be told what action is going to be taken, and the more information that can be given about restrictive practices, objectionable practices and monopoly practices of all kinds, and the more publicity that there is, the better it will be.
Before we begin to consider what ought to be done with the facts when we get them, we ought to consider—and this is where I come to a point made by the hon. Member for Ashford—the question of how the trades are themselves selected for investigation under the present system. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade considers the complaints and decides the order in which they should go to the Commission. If I am wrong about that, no doubt I shall be corrected, but I think that is right.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Mr. P. Thorneycroft indicated assent.

Mr. Darling: I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for doing it in that way, but I think the job would be far better done if we could start the other way round and compel firms and trade associations in this country who have restrictive practices of one kind or another to register those practices. Those restrictive practices are bound to be known unless they are in a hidden agreement which never comes to the surface. There are conditions of sale and agreements between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and there are firms which operate behind patents which give them a monopoly of the processes that they operate.
We know that there are patent arrangements which give a legal sanction to a firm or trade association that act together for the purpose of price fixing, quota fixing and so on. We want all those agreements reduced, and this is how we should begin. Whether it could be done under the present Act I do not know, but if you, Mr. Colegate, would agree that we can assume it can be done under this Act, then I can continue. I think it could be done. This registration of what are called cartel agreements has worked very well in Sweden, and I think we should look at the Swedish experiment—because it is only an experiment.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the case of Sweden copiously. Is it not a fact that these arrangements in Sweden apply primarily to manufacturing organisations? They do not apply to the equivalent of our trade associations, which are primarly concerned with fixing prices and wholesale and retail margins in the process of distribution—and it is always distribution which is the core of the complexity.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say. What I was saying was that this registration of agreements has worked very well in Sweden but that there are two weaknesses. One is that the arrangement refers only to manufacturers, as the hon. Gentleman said, and the distributive arrangements, which, I agree, are where we find the worse malpractices, are not registered. That is the first weakness. The second weakness—and this is something which we should note—is that the mere fact of registration does not mean that all the information is available about the effects of a cartel agreement and there is, therefore, need for further investigation.
What I suggest is that the field of investigation would be more clearly seen and we should be far better able to separate the sheep from the goats if we had such a registration of all restrictive agreements and practices. If I am not out of order in saying so, that should also apply to international agreements. I will not pursue that point any further.
What are we to do with the facts when we get hold of them? I have said that, first of all, there should be a fact-finding body which publishes the facts—and, as I have said, let there be public discussion and argument about the facts. But where, after further examination, the facts are proved to refer to practices which are harmful to trade and industry generally, in the terms of the Act, we must certainly quicken the procedure for action. I shall not pursue that point further, for it has been covered by previous speakers.
Quite obviously, when we get information and when we know that there are some restrictive practices which ought to be stopped, unless there is a proper enforcement system those practices will continue even though they are offences


against the law. After all, it is very difficult to get over to the various trades and industries of the country information about the legal position. Unless we are quite certain about all the firms which are concerned in those operations, and unless we have a proper enforcement system, a number of these people will continue to get away with the practices which we and the Commission condemn.
Here I want to say a few words about the question of taking action against practices which are common to quite a number of trades and industries, a point with which the President himself dealt. Collective boycotts and exclusive dealings have been mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will get the Commission to consider these collective common practices a little further and to see whether any common action can be taken, presumably to stop them.
These common actions have been investigated very thoroughly over a long period, starting in our own generation with the Greene Committee of 1930, which investigated the restraint of trade. Every body, official Government body or unofficial body, which has considered collective boycotts and exclusive dealings has urged that action should be taken against them. I am not suggesting that all these agreements for such collective action are necessarily harmful. Some may be working in the public interest; some may have started to prevent the public from being exploited. But we want to examine all of them, to separate the sheep from the goats and to take action against those which are obviously not in the public interest.
I will give a few examples, and to begin with I will declare my interest, for I am speaking for the Co-operative societies of this country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the two points which I now wish to put to him. I shall not go over the whole ground, because hon. Members have heard the Cooperative societies' case before, but the fact is that many manufacturers get together to prevent Co-operative societies from having supplies of their goods because the Co-operative societies choose to distribute their profits as a rebate to their customers and not as share interest to the shareholders.
That is all it is, and it is a very simple matter. Is there anything socially,

economically or morally wrong with that method of distributing profits, in the opinion of the Government? Have the Government any complaint against that method of distributing profits—that is, distributing them as rebates to the customer, as dividends on purchases? Do the Government believe there is anything wrong in that? If they do not believe there is anything wrong in it, then, because of the existence of this Monopolies Commission, we want the Government to take specific action to prevent Cooperative societies, in particular, from being hampered and, in some cases, as I could explain, from having their trade crippled by the fact that they cannot obtain supplies from manufacturers when the reason they cannot get those supplies is that manufacturers have one complaint only—that the societies distribute their profits as rebates on purchases. One of my hon. Friends says the word should be "surpluses": I prefer to call them "profits."
If the Government have no complaint against that method of distributing profits, what action do they propose to take to stop the series of boycotts aimed specifically at Co-operative societies? Now that the Monopolies Commission exists, the only way in which such boycotts can continue is through the Government taking the view that this method of distributing profits is wrong. I put that challenge to the Government. After all the discussions we have had in the House on the subject of Co-operative trading, it is time the Government told us what they think about this method of distributing Co-operative society profits. It was not necessary for the last Government to tell us their view, because we knew it.
I shall not go over the whole series of boycotts against the Co-operative movement, because hon. Members are aware Of them, but I should like to give one story of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society which has been taking its mobile trading vans in a very good social way to the scattered villages and hamlets and the crofters' homes in the Highlands and on the Islands of Scotland—taking the services of the big cities to the scattered areas.
In order to do this effectively, they have quite honestly bought up, in the open market, one or two private traders' businesses, including newspaper agencies:


but, of course, they are not allowed to distribute newspapers. That is an effective boycott which is imposed or acquiesced in by all the newspapers in this country, that oppose monopoly and get up, so to speak, in the public prints, and stand for free competition and none of these practices that we are now concerned with. The only way the newspapers can get to those places in the Highlands—the newspapers that the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society are not allowed to sell—is by Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society transport. That is one example of the idiotic situations that can arise.

Mr. Deedes: As the hon. Gentleman has addressed that story to me, perhaps I ought to point out that one of the tasks of the Royal Commission that investigated this industry was to discover whether such monopolistic practices existed, and that the answer was "No."

Mr. Darling: I shall not pursue that matter, because I should be out of order. We know how the matter was put to the Royal Commission. Frankly, there is not a single Co-operative society in this country that is allowed by the Retail Newsagents' Federation to sell newspapers. That is an effective and 100 per cent. boycott. The facts speak for themselves.
Another point arose in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) when he mentioned the arithmetical measurement that gives the clue to the industries and trades that should be investigated. They are well worth reconsidering. I may be getting out of order again here, because I do not know whether amending legislation would be needed to do what I am suggesting ought to be done.
One aspect of this arithmetical measurement, the one-third of the trade or of the physical assets of the industry, needs serious reconsideration. It is the question that arises when local authorities are asking for tenders for the supply of parts of houses, equipment, office furniture, or whatever it may be. In some cases, particularly on the building side of their activities, tenders naturally and usually come from local firms. There may be a ring of local firms tendering and agreeing among themselves to direct the tenders where they want them to go and at the

price that they suggest. That may be a 100 per cent. offence in that area, but the firms concerned may have less than one per cent. of the whole trade of the country. The position of local authorities in this particular ought to be looked at, to make sure that a local boycott is not measured by national figures in the particular industry.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I think the hon. Gentleman will find there is provision for taking the proportions locally as well as nationally, and that the point is covered in the Act as it stands.

Mr. Darling: I have seen that Section of the Act. I have probably been exaggerating when talking about the comparison between local and national figures. Firms that want to influence contracts and to arrange prices among themselves probably ensure—by widening the area of their operations—that they come within the terms of the Act, and are not investigated. I suggest that the special position of local authorities ought to be looked at. I suggest first of all that all firms should be compelled to register; whether that requires new legislation or not ought to be considered.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): I ask the hon. Gentleman not to pursue that point.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Why not?

Mr. Darling: I shall not pursue that point. I was just summing up.

Mr. Pannell: We are not on the Adjournment.

Mr. Darling: The Government ought to take steps immediately, not to ask the Commission to give further consideration in a long-winded kind of way to the common objectionable practices that we want to get rid of, but to bring proposals before the House to get rid of these practices so that we can discuss here the action that ought to be taken, particularly the action in regard to Co-operative societies, which calls for special consideration.
In any case, in the construction of the Commission itself, the fact-finding side ought to be greatly strengthened. Publication of the facts ought to precede publication of the considerations of the action that ought to be taken, of the reports,


and so on. The more public discussion we have over the widest possible field the better for British industry and the healthier British industry will become.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling). With much that he said I entirely agree. I would just advance as a matter for consideration the suggestion that we should not go too fast. More is on trial in the work of this Commission than merely monopolies and restrictive practices.
In its structure the Commission is open to various serious ethical objections, in that the victim does not know what offence he has committed until after he has been tried. This is an old objection to this form of procedure, although I do not think that it is fatal, but it means that we must all be very careful when we break, as we are breaking, a fundamental rule of natural justice.
In the words of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) it means that somebody has been "called up and convicted by the Monopolies Commission"—these were his words—and we should remember that such persons have not been infringing any law which they can read or understand and that the law in this matter is, as it were, ex post facto. This position is totally new in English legal history and might be said to be reactionary, but I do not think that it necessarily need be, provided that we are very careful.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is that quite correct? Is it not the fact that the particular firms are being investigated, and not tried?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is how I should like to see it work out, but the word used by the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend was that many of these industries had already been "convicted" of malpractices by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Act is quite clear.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No doubt, but the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was also clear, and the attitude in this matter is very important because that is what gets publicity rather than the Act.
That being so, it is difficult to support the suggestion that the Commission should operate in panels or divisions. If there is to be a gradual deduction of the law from individual cases, it is essential that the matter should be in one hand, and particularly in the hand of a chairman, or in the hands of the Commission as a whole. It is all very well in courts of law to sit in divisions, because the divisions know what the law is that they are to enforce.
The Commission is not only a fact-finding body, but is judge and also legislator in this case. It is difficult for it to sit in various divisions simultaneously because it may be legislating in contrary senses simultaneously. Already the work of the Commission has shown surprising results. One cannot assume that all these malpractices are necessarily against the public interest. That may sound an Irishism, but I think hon. Members know what I mean.
I was impressed by the finding in the Report on the cable industry that the individual and independent producers outside the Cablemakers' Association were in favour of that association fixing the price instead of being up in arms about it. It reminds me of a story I was once told by the head of a firm of multiple grocers. He said that the last thing they wanted to do was to buy up the small grocers. If they left one small grocer in every area of the country it meant that they could fix their prices at the same level as those of the small grocer and make a higher profit because their costs were less and their efficiency greater, and then they could not be accused of being monopolists. That illustrates the extreme difficulty of assuming that practices are necessarily bad. It is essential to wait for more experience from this Commission before we can decide whether things that may seem bad in a sellers' market are necessarily bad in a buyers' market.
In his opening speech the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made great play with the sinister things that go on behind locked doors. Locked doors and the Star Chamber sound very bad, but I appeared professionally before one of those locked door tribunals enforcing Motor Traders Association covenants for the sale of new cars under covenant. Certain motor traders tried to break the


one-year or two-year covenant and the trade has its own tribunal in the West End by which they may be put on trial.
There are great theoretical objections to that, but neither the late Government nor this Government has objected to the motor trade doing that; in fact, they have welcomed it. It has taken a great load off their shoulders in regard to enforcing those covenants which are greatly in the public interest in a sellers' market. Therefore, it is not right to talk about locked doors as if they were always bad. We have not had enough experience of the operation of this Commission in a buyers' market and, until we have had that, it would be unwise to separate the operation of a body which in its short history has proved valuable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke of the importance of acquiring a body of rules good for both a sellers' market and a buyers' market which would not have to be changed each succeeding year. I agree with that because, if we are constantly changing the rules and the definition of the public interest, we shall get industry into such a muddle that it will have no confidence in the essential purpose of this Measure, with which we all agree.
That brings me to the question of enforcement. One of the reasons why things seem to be slow is because the Commission, consciously or unconsciously, has confirmed the view that it is necessary to take the confidence of industry along with it. If it goes in for a tearing campaign of investigation, it will lose the confidence of industry and, as at present constituted, it cannot hope to enforce its findings unless it carries the confidence of industry to a large extent. It is only by agreement that this can be done.
It may be the fact that it cannot be done even that way. I think the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) implied that, sooner or later, we shall have to adopt the American system by which vast bodies of enforcement officers, highly skilled accountants, all in the Government service, all highly paid—because accountants can demand high wages—enforce the findings of this or some other Monopolies Commission in the way that the Sherman and Clayton Acts in America have to be enforced.
I do not think that such a possibility could be faced by anyone in this Committee with equanimity. The consequent charge upon the public exchequer would be enormous and, even if it were adopted, I am not sure how effective the creation of a large new system of economic crimes would be. It is assumed too readily by the hon. Member that the enforcement procedure in America is effective.

Mr. Crosland: No.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I know that impressive court orders are made splitting up Standard Oil, dividing the share of markets in the Aluminum case, and so on. However, I doubt if, in spite of that elaborate network and vast expense, the old boy network has been effectively broken up in America. In fact, I propose to spend the long vacation in America studying this point.

Mr. Crosland: This is interesting and important. I agree that it does not work with 100 per cent. efficiency in America and that there is still collusion, but I think there is much less in the United States than in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I put my question? If the hon. Gentleman dislikes the proposal I made for a more efficient enforcement body, does he propose to leave the matter completely as it stands at the moment?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No. The hon. Member is probably right when he says that the old boy network in America may be less effective than here, because they are not such old boys in the sense that they do not work in the same way as we do, and because the old boy network is not quite so strong there quite apart from any question of monopolies or restrictive practices. Here, it is extremely strong, and that reinforces my point, because it is only if we can get the old boys on our side in this country that we shall ever achieve anything unless or until there is some sort of police state to break up the old boys' association altogether. In other words, we either have to go the whole hog or else carry the confidence of industry with us.
I believe that this Commission can carry the confidence of industry with it, though it may be slow in doing so. If, however, it can, it can save an immense amount of public expenditure and ill-feeling and a great increase in lawyers' fees and in the police—and a particularly


nasty form of police at that—then it is worth saving, but it cannot be done unless industry has confidence in its work.

Mr. Percy Daines: The hon. Gentleman refers repeatedly to the confidence of industry. It has already been established that there are certain practices condemned by the Commission that are common in quite a number of industries. We hope that when the legislation has been passed industry will accept it and change accordingly. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by industry having confidence in the work of the Commission when so far we have no evidence that some industries are prepared to put their house in order in the light of what is generally condemned?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No industry, until it has been actually examined, would admit that it was not in order. It is only after a decision by an impartial body, such as this one, that an industry will admit to itself, let alone to anyone else, that what it is doing is not perfectly proper, right and honourable. In 90 per cent. of the cases investigated industry has agreed to reverse certain practices hitherto adopted. It will take time to see whether industry honours that agreement.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: In the meantime, if the industries could get away with their malpractices, presumably they should do so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Until somebody has proved it to be so, it is not a malpractice. It is quite wrong to prejudge the issue and to say that something is a malpractice until an independent body has said so; it cannot be assumed to be anything but a good practice.
For example, I referred at the beginning of my speech to a "closed door." That is something that everybody regards automatically as a malpractice, and yet a closed door tribunal to enforce the motor car covenant was supported and encouraged both by the last Government and by the present Government. It cannot be assumed that because there is a slogan about closed doors, they are always wrong.
It is interesting that the pressure against the Commission, the pressure to divide itself so as to increase its work,

to increase its powers and to increase the enforcement of these things, comes from two quarters. It comes from two strange bedfellows. It comes, first, from the Americans, who have folklore considerations about this matter and to whom it is an act of faith that any arrangement for the protection of industry is almost automatically wrong. It comes also from the far Left. This must be one of the few occasions on which the far Left and the Americans agree.
I suggest that both are wrong. Until we have discovered from more experience exactly how fast and how far it is proper to go, it would be quite wrong to tamper with an Act that is working well, which has entirely new and rather dangerous machinery, and which has already produced results.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I have listened to most of the debate, and my impression is that it has been carried on very successfully on academic lines and that the usefulness that the Commission can and ought to serve has under present conditions not been stressed to any extent whatever.
The hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for instance, used some of his time to deal with the elements of enforcement and the "old boy" network. I am not sure that that is not a step far too much in advance of any practical consideration that we need to have this afternoon. But even so, is it really suggested that under the provisions of the Act, and by the powers that are conferred upon the President of the Board of Trade, enforcement could not be made absolutely effective? I question very much indeed that there is anything whatever in the issue of enforcement. If there is the will to do it, the way is there, clearly indicated by the Act and by the powers possessed by the President of the Board of Trade.
I have said that the debate has followed academic lines. In this respect, we have heard of the various Reports that have already been issued by the Commission. I do not belittle those Reports, but in my opinion—I say this emphatically, and I am sure the public will agree—not a single topic in any of those Reports touches immediately or essentially the urgent demands which might well come within the purview of the Commission.
In my opinion, the Commission are being used as a sort of legal textbook-publishing institution. We have had an echo of this from other speakers, including the hon. Member for Darwen, who referred to the Commission having a body of law; and someone talked about the high judicial quality of the work of the Commission. That may well be true. I should be very sorry to blame the Commission for any work they have done or for any activity of theirs that is on record to date. If any blame is to he ascribed, it must be attributed to the President of the Board of Trade and to no one else.
It is perfectly clear, even from the speeches from both sides of the Committee today, that no one is satisfied either with the progress or with the nature of the work already done by the Commission. The reason for this dissatisfaction is not far to seek. It has not been emphatically expressed today but, quite obviously, it has been in the background all the time. It is because the immediate needs of public interest are not being served. The whole object of the Act and the whole purpose of its introduction was that it should serve the purposes of public interest.
Therefore, I say, as an introduction to my observations, that the real work of the Commission has not begun, and that the sooner it is started the better. It is the President of the Board of Trade who has the responsibility for setting it in action, and he ought to honour this responsibility promptly.
If I wanted to use this point for political purposes, I could justify that observation by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative booklet "The Right Road" said distinctly, as part of the promises and the policy put before the electorate by the Tory Party at the last election, that a Tory Government would "use the Monopolies Commission to the full." The Government, however, are taking a long time to think about it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Fletcher-Cooke rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I cannot give way. I cannot in any way understand the suggestion that for practical purposes the scope of the Commission is limited. Not even the academic arguments that we have heard could prove that to be

true. Let us, therefore, consider the purview of the function of the Commission, the source from which they derive their powers, and what they cover.
The scope of the Commission covers all inquiries which relate to any goods supplied by anyone. I have heard references this afternoon to a particular industry being referred to the Commission by the President of the Board of Trade. That is altogether incorrect. The case of any person or persons, firms or associations, can be referred by the President of the Board of Trade to the Commission regarding their practices in relation to the supply of goods, the processing of goods, or agreements and arrangements in connection with goods. The fact that the Commission themselves have no power to initiate any inquiry throws the responsibility much more heavily upon the President of the Board of Trade, and wherever the public interest comes in issue in respect of something which the Commission ought to be concerned, it is his duty to see that the matter is submitted to them.
Is there anyone who has not long since realised, or who does not know of, the existence of agreements and arrangements of restrictive practices in connection with the production, sale and supply of goods, and particularly the distribution of goods? As a further development of the observation I made that the purview of reference is not limited, Section 15 of the Act actually provides—as it was designedly intended to provide—for general questions to be submitted to the Commission so that no one could escape from practices of a restrictive nature for some narrow, technical reason. That point arises not in its relation to any particular trade, not in any narrow compass at all, but on an issue of what effect it has in practice on the public interest. That is the broad fact and purpose of the Act.
Anyone who reads Section 14 of the Act will see that it is the keystone of this legislation. That was its purpose and it was that which inspired the Act, that the public interest should be safeguarded. It has been said rather sarcastically from the other side of the Committee that public interest was not defined and that Labour Ministers said they could not define it. That is only half the truth.
What was said was that it is true that the term public interest is not defined, and


it is right that it should not be defined, because once we circumscribe it there is a danger that something which really ought to be looked at by the Commission cannot be looked at because of some technical exclusion. Anyone with any common sense knows at once that if a commission, or anyone else, looks at a question and a set of circumstances and says it is inimical to the interests of the public there is no reason why we should have any technical, academic or restrictive definition to cover it.
Any of these questions can be submitted by the President of the Board of Trade. He makes a preliminary examination of the matter. It is not as though anyone capriciously or frivolously were to hand over a question to the Commission for examination. That is not the process at all. No one but the President of the Board of Trade can refer any question to the Commission. Obviously, he will not act merely as a conduit pipe, but will consider the position and determine whether it is appropriate to refer the matter.
Once the Commission have a matter referred to them they have the fullest powers to deal with it. They have the fullest powers of procedure, can make their own rules and procedure and can take evidence. They can take evidence on oath and call for and enforce the discovery of documents. If any of these things is not attended to, or if the orders of the Commission are disobeyed, the Commission can apply sanctions. The provision of the 1948 Act is more than ample to cover anything immediately requisite to the public interest in these inquiries.
During his opening remarks, I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. When I put it to him he put on that cherubic expression of innocence with which the Committee is very familiar. Usually it masks on his part nescience of the point put to him I asked: What about the cost of living? How comes it that the President of the Board of Trade has not referred to the Commission, pertinent, pressing, relevant, essential, urgent matters of restrictive practices—price rings, and controls, and things of that kind, the result of which is leading to a rise in the cost of living? With that cherubic blank on his innocent face he looked as if he had never heard of the

cost of living, as though this legislation had nothing to do with the cost of living and as though it would be an outrage even to mention such a thing to the Commission.
Anyone who knows anything about the present situation—if we asked the housewives they would tell us—about restrictive practices with which the Commission would be very much concerned if they were asked to look at them and how distribution is cramped and impeded, knows that prices are high partly because we cannot get the benefit of reductions from improvements in distribution. We all know about re-sale price maintenance and particularly about trade associations, of which I shall have a word to say in a moment. We know about boycott and price rings. Are not all these where they raise the cost of living operating against the public interest?

Mr. R. Harris: No.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not every one of them adding to the cost of living?

Mr. Harris: No.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I say to the President of the Board of Trade that he is not doing his duty, that he is failing in his, duty in not referring these matters to the Commission in the interests of doing something to reduce the rising cost of living.
I agree, of course, that the machinery of the Commission is quite inadequate. I do not blame the Commission for that; I sympathise with them. It is perfectly clear that we can get nowhere with this work any more than we could in the industrial court, which rapidly found that they had to sit in divisions. It would not be possible to run one division only and get through all the work. It is most essential in matters of this kind that these questions should be dealt with rapidly and effectively. If the Commission are to be able to do their work their machinery must be adequate to the task, and so must the number of members of the Commission employed. They must be able to sit in divisions and the number of divisions must be adequate to the amount of current work.
What precisely the number of divisions should be it is not for me to say. It is clear that the President of the Board of Trade and the Committee will have to


consider the number sitting in those divisions with knowledge, experience and expertness sufficient to give a decision which would command the confidence of the country and of trade. It is equally clear that these divisions must lead to speedier action. This idea of putting out four Reports in four years does not meet the needs of the situation at all. We want something much more practical than anything the Commission have yet done.
Look at prices today—prices are affected by all these things. Prices today are absolutely fantastic. Take furniture, clothes, or food. What do we find? I do not want to go into the Lloyd Jacob Report, but can anyone deny that there are combines covering all these items The result of those combinations is that prices—

Sir William Darling: Will the hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, let me finish my point first. Combinations are springing up, and does anyone deny—I have no doubt that the hon. Member is deeply touched by this—that prices are either going up or remaining static instead of coming down.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. and learned Member give way now?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me finish my point, and I will give way. I ask why, following upon that, there has been no reference of any of these matters to the Commission by the Board of Trade. I think we have a right to ask.

Mr. Nabarro: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for giving way. He has been quoting the Lloyd Jacob Report. Is he indicating a split in the Labour Party, because all his hon. Friends do not agree with him? I have here a quotation of something said by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), President of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, who said, of a statement by the former President of the Board of Trade, that there was profound disquiet in his union at the proposal to make price maintenance schemes illegal; thus expressing precisely the opposite view to that expressed by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am not concerned with any sectional interest; I am concerned with what the Act is concerned with—the public interest. I understand, of course, that hon. Members opposite are there to protect sectional interests, but I am here to protect the public interest.
I have already said that the Tory Party, in their manifesto—their booklet, "The Right Road" says distinctly and invitingly to the electorate that they will use to the full the Monopolies Commission. What have they done?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Fletcher-Cooke rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me finish my sentence. Instead of that what have they done? They have come to this House in order to hand over steel and transport to private interests and to throw new town public houses into the laps of the brewers.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Fletcher-Cooke rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Just a moment.
Apart from that, when one looks at the work of the Commission—electric lamps, dental goods, rainwater goods, insulated electric wires and cables—what impact has that on the struggle of the working class and the housewife to meet the cost of living? None at all. The President of the Board of Trade must know that, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the point. That work does not touch the surface of the problems we have in relation to restrictive practices, and it does not relax the stranglehold of vested interests on the home or on the larder. Does the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) now wish to intervene?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have been trying to do so because the hon. and learned Member has twice repeated our pledge that we would use the Monopolies Commission to the full. Is he suggesting that the Monopolies Commission have not been working hard during the last six months, that they have not been working night and day? I can assure him that if he is suggesting that his suggestion is false.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I leave the hon. Member with his comforting thought. The facts are on record.
Let me briefly go into the question which I mentioned—the distribution of


goods. Everyone knows that the public are being deprived of the benefits of improved distribution and are losing the benefits of the low costs of distribution, and that the surplus profits are merely going into the pockets of restrictive traders. That is not merely my view; it is that of the Lloyd Jacob Report.
That Report showed that the distributive trades are being stifled by collective price maintenance schemes and methods of trade which prevent the reduction of costs and prices. Surely that is a matter, especially as it is the subject of a Report, that the Commission should investigate, and along with it, this question of trade associations. Everyone knows that trade associations exist to enforce price agreements against the public interest.

Sir W. Darling: Co-operative societies?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not accept that, but even if it were so it would not make it right.
Reference has been made to the Lloyd Jacob Report. I do not want to occupy time by reading an extract from it but I would refer the Committee to what the then President of the Board of Trade said on 2nd June, 1949. Members will see what is said about the recommendations on the abolition of collective resale price maintenance and the effect it is having upon prices, etc.
I need only mention building costs. Everyone knows that they are going higher and higher, and it is being seriously mooted whether, before long, local authorities will be unable to build because of the price of building. It is perfectly clear that the effect of that rise is leading to most excessive rents which people really cannot afford to pay.
I wish to refer, in conclusion, to contracts in restraint of trade. I do so because it is not very widely known that these contracts are not illegal. What happens is that if one goes to the courts to enforce such a contract the courts refuse to do so because such contracts are against public policy and against the public interest.
Here are three things which an association can do under English law and I should like the Committee to consider their implications. A trade association can sell at a fixed price and can refuse to sell otherwise; in other words, it can be

absolutely arbitrary as to what the public must pay for its goods. It can notify, by means of a stop list, members of the association of persons who have infringed prices or dealings and can deal with them accordingly. In many cases people have been put out of business because of that, and they can prevent by lawful means any indirect supply of goods to the public at economic prices.
There has been some talk about an association making rules and submitting them to the President of the Board of Trade. It does not matter at all what rules an association may make or submit to the President today, because tomorrow they can pass a resolution which can cancel out all the rules they have made, and they can enforce that resolution. There is no legal sanction, enforcement or "old boy" network about the rules of a trade association. The President of the Board of Trade is speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he refers to the idea of an association submitting a set of rules to him and suggests that that would meet the case or be in any way satisfactory.
The truth is that the President of the Board of Trade with the party behind him, is hedging on this vital issue. It is an issue which takes no account of some of the academic nonsense which we have heard this afternoon but embraces the very real and serious problems and struggles of hundreds of thousands of people in this country over rising prices and the cost of living. It is that subject which the President should consider. That is the only context in which he should look at the Act and at the work of the Commission. If he does that he can send at once to the Commission questions to be resolved quickly which will help the public and will greatly add to the credit of the Commission themselves.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: It is not often that I have the pleasure of rising to say that I disagree with almost everything that the last speaker has said. Usually I am able to say that I agree with part and disagree with a little, but in the two and a half years during which I have been a Member of the House of Commons seldom have I heard such prejudice, bigotry and nonsense as we have just heard from the


hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I cannot understand how any hon. Members can stand up and calmly say that everyone believes that price maintenance agreements are against the public interest, that collective boycott is against the public interest and that exclusive dealing is against the public interest. Even some of the hon. Friends of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester have said that there are cases where these things are in the public interest; but he says that there is none.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member is trying to make a debating point. He knows very well that I was referring to concrete cases where the cost of living has been raised because of these practices.

Mr. Harris: The way in which the hon. and learned Member put it was a little unfortunate. I almost blush as a member of the Bar to hear a silk talking about restrictive practices. [An HON. MEMBER: "No advertising."] The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester is not allowed to appear in court unless he has a junior with him. What sort of restrictive practice is that?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would not apply in the hon. Member's case because we are against each other.

Mr. Harris: I hope we should not be always against each other in court.
It is also a great privilege to take part in this debate. I look forward to it every year, because every year we have a debate on monopolies or restrictive practices. We had one in June, 1950, another in the middle of June, 1951, and here we are having another about 12 months later.
I always look forward to this annual debate because it is the one day of the year when I hear the Labour Party extolling the virtues of private enterprise and fighting hard for the rights of the small man to trade and for manufacturers, big and small. This is the one day out of the 365. On the other 364 days we have to listen to them running down private enterprise and saying what a lot of crooks and criminals private industrialists and traders are and how they soak the public and grind everybody to dust. This day is like a breath of fresh air.
Earlier we had the privilege of seeing the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) float into the Chamber like Prince Charming and stay only long enough to tell his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) that he was talking nonsense about the B.E.A. manufacturing lamps. They could manufacture lamps cheaply, of course, for they could make up the price by subsidies from the charges. The Tory Party are not going to stand for that sort of thing. [Interruption.] They are certainly not. They do not want to put up charges to consumers and so raise the cost of living.

Mr. Daines: The hon. Member would employ his time much better if he told us how private enterprise works in the tyre industry.

Mr. Harris: I have only just started, and I was going to try to keep off tyres. But as I have been invited to say something about them, I shall have much pleasure in doing so. I cannot help pointing out that after the Socialist Party had been in power for two or three years, I heard their Socialist friends saying, "Since Labour has been in power we have had hardly any bankruptcies. Carey Street is almost empty." One of the reasons is that we have had trade associations growing up or, in the phrase of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, "combines creeping up upon us." We have been getting a little order into industry by having some re-sale price maintenance agreements, so that the trader knows exactly where he stands.
I have one supporter on the other side—the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley)—who has already been quoted by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Nabarro: Quote him again in full.

Mr. Harris: I will quote another paragraph from his speech. He said:
Our union has had 50 years of bitter experience of 'eastern bazaar' conditions in the distributive trades, low wages, and sweated conditions, and we shall fight against any attempt to make the present 'free-for-all" scramble even worse.
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here to fight with his colleagues on that side of the Committee.
I should like to deal with one or two suggestions of hon. Members on the other side which seek to meet the present situation, particularly the one made by the


hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), who said that things might be speeded up if the Commission published the facts it managed to find as quickly as it could before getting down to conclusions and recommendations. I am not an expert and I can only go by what I see in the Reports. These Reports, which are pretty lengthy, consist practically entirely of facts. If one looks at the Report on cast iron rain-water goods, one finds that it runs to 131 pages, of which about four or five in the middle are conclusions and recommendations. Pages 61 to 66 are conclusions and recommendations; the first 60 pages and the last 60 pages are facts, including the appendices.
I imagine it must take many months to get hold of all these facts. That, surely, is what takes up the time. The recommendations and conclusions are very short. We find the same thing if we look at the Report on the supply of electric lamps. That is a Report which runs to 200 pages, of which 14 pages in the middle consist of conclusions and recommendations and the other 186 pages of facts. What an enormous bundle of facts. It must take them months to get them, and they do so with the assistance of people like the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester who get briefed for these jobs. It must be very paying for them.
I want to refer specifically to the proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade that the Commission should exercise the powers already given to them under Section 15 of the Act.

Mr. Daines: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester is not here. Surely, in common fairness, the hon. Member should cast his net a bit wider and refer to the briefs which the present Attorney-General used to get before he came here.

Mr. Harris: I would remind the hon. Member that it is the usual custom for Members to remain until the persons following them have finished their speeches. If the hon. and learned Member cannot wait, I have no sympathy for him.

Mr. Orbach: The hon. Member is talking of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester. He has been sitting here all day.

Mr. Harris: I, too, have been sitting here all day. I should like to deal with another point which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, in relation to the public interest. I will do what the hon. Gentleman did not do and quote what was said by the then President of the Board of Trade at the time the Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill was going through the House. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South claims that the Government did not fail to define the public interest; but they did fail to do so, and this is what the then President of the Board of Trade said:
… some have suggested … that we should set out a definition of the public interest in the Bill. The Government have not thought it necessary or desirable to do this. I think every Member of the House knows what he means by the public interest. … I can sincerely inform the House that we have tried our best to work out such a definition and have failed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 2035–6.]
There is an admission of failure by the then President of the Board of Trade, and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should now ask the Monopolies Commission to do something which Parliament and the Government failed to do—to define the public interest. Nobody can say exactly what it is, which is why we have such extraordinary statements from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South that all these things like collective boycotts and exclusive dealing are against the public interest.
Turning next to the proposal by the President of the Board of Trade that the Monopolies Commission should exercise their powers under Section 15 and consider what action can be taken on the Reports which have already been submitted, I can only say that I am profoundly pessimistic. It seems to me that they will only come back to where the Lloyd Jacob Committee were in 1949. The Report of the Lloyd Jacob Committee reads, in paragraph 114:
It appears to us to be contrary to the public interest for a manufacturer to use his power to cut off supplies in such a way as to obstruct the growth of particular methods of trading, to impede the distribution by another manufacturer of competitive goods or to deprive the public of the benefits of low cost systems of distribution.
When we get that conclusion, what shall we do about it? We shall still


have to look at every industry individually, otherwise the thing does not make sense. Even the Lloyd Jacob Committee had to give precise examples from various industries before their Report made sense. It will clearly not be possible to pass any legislation which says these are things which are completely and absolutely wrong, leaving it to the trade associations or various industries to make their cases.
The time factor would preclude such action. Who is to decide whether or not a restrictive agreement is in the public interest or against it? Parliament has not been able to decide; the Government of the day could not decide it. Are Board of Trade officials to make the decision, or some accountants? How long will it take before we get round to examining every single agreement and to deciding whether or not it is in the public interest? I am not against the proposal that trade associations should register their rules. Registering every single agreement might also be possible. But it is not possible to pass legislation to say that all these things like collective boycotts and exclusive dealings are, ab initio, against the public interest. We should throw industry into chaos if we did that.
What about industries where the goods require an after-sales service, such as motor cars and tyres? In the tyre industry we have arrangements which hon. Members might call exclusive dealing. One cannot sell a tyre in this country unless one is on the tyre trade register. But it is not very difficult to get on to the register; almost anyone can get on to it. Indeed, there are 26,000 names on the tyre trade register, and anybody can sell a tyre who can prove that he has a shop, that he knows how to fit a tyre and that he has premises available for doing it.
Clearly, we do not want tyres fitted badly or there may be accidents. It is reasonable that there should be some check before a man is allowed to sell a tyre. Hon. Members might say that this is exclusive dealing and they might make regulations against exclusive dealing which would necessarily include such a practice, but surely it is reasonable exclusive dealing and in the public interest. Nobody argues with me on this.
What about motor cars? There are resale price maintenance arrangements

in the motor car industry, and very strict ones—and, my goodness, if they had not been strict how would anybody have got a motor car in the last few years with the tremendous shortage there has been?

Mr. Pannell: What about the prices?

Mr. Harris: Prices are coming down. If there had not been these very strong resale price maintenance agreements nobody would have been able to get a car except at a fantastic price, whereas throughout all these difficult years, although people have had to go on waiting lists, and have had to wait for cars, at any rate they paid the right prices for them when they got them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the Labour Government in five and a half years of office did not manage to devise a better system than the one in operation at the moment. The former Minister of Supply stood at the Box one night—I heard him—and explained that they had tried to improve the scheme for the allocation of motor cars, and failed. I agree that the system is not perfect, but it is not anybody's fault that there is not a better method.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Nabarro: Not yet. The hon. Member has only just started.

Mr. Pannell: I did not think I was asking the permission of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I thought I was asking the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heston and Isleworth, who is speaking. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is speaking about some sort of planned economy. We want to hear about free enterprise.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry that the hon. Member missed the first part of my speech. I was just commenting on that very thing. This is just the one day in the year when Members of the Labour Party want free enterprise. For the other 364 I have got to listen to them running it down.
I also want to take the President of the Board of Trade to task for not carrying out the Conservative Party's election pledges. One of them was quite definitely that, as soon as we were returned, we would see that the nationalised industries


were brought within the purview of the Monopolies Commission. Let us have that. I should be very much happier if they were brought in.
Let us have a Monopolies Commission which is going to probe into every restrictive practice—including the restrictive practices of trade unions as well, because it is conceivable that their practices are helping to keep up the cost of living. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, there are sorts of restrictive practices that go on in industry and in the trade unions. If we are to have a Monopolies Commission to look into restrictive practices for the purpose of keeping down the cost of living, let it have a jolly good look at the whole lot, and let us start with the big monopolies—the real, pukka monopolies—of these nationalised industries.

Mr. Orbach: When I look at hon. Members opposite, I think we want more restrictive practices, not fewer.

Mr. Harris: I am in a complete muddle now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been sitting here from 3.30 listening to Socialist Members saying, "We want to do away with restrictive practices," and now one comes along and says he wants more of them. These divisions in the Labour Party are too confusing for words. We must be careful not to have a General Election just yet, or some hon. Members opposite will be in trouble.

Mr. Orbach: It is the hon. Gentleman who is confused.

Mr. Harris: Not at all. It is the Labour Party who have got into such terrible confusion. It is so. Why is it that we have them telling the country, "It is these monopolists, these industrialists"—they call them monopolists—"who are keeping up the cost of living and putting up prices to the public," and generally running down everybody who is engaged in trade or who manufactures anything or even tries to export goods to keep this country going? They do that for 364 days in the year and then—why is it?—on this one day of the year they come along and say, "Leave them alone. We want enterprise. We want less restrictive practices."
I end by urging my right hon. Friend to take this matter very seriously. I do not think the measures he has proposed today are really adequate. Section 15 is not going to get us anywhere at all.

because when the Commission has come to its conclusions—which may be a very long time, for, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South has said, it has got certain things to look into now—but when it has produced some recommendations under Section 15 it will still have to look at every individual industry before the recommendations can be applied. That is for the simple reason that in some cases it will be right to apply their recommendations and in others it will not. I therefore ask that at an early stage the Government get on with the job of strengthening this Commission, enlarging its scope and its powers, and bringing the nationalised industries and trade unions under its purview.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) need not worry about the result of the next Election, because he obviously has a great future on the music-halls when he loses his seat.
Having listened to this debate, I think it is quite clear that we all love the Monopolies Commission, but that some of us happen to love it more than others. Listening to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), I thought that he was going to strangle it by his solicitude for its welfare; he seemed to be perfectly happy and content with the fact that since it came into operation we have had four Reports, one Order and three recommendations.
If that satisfies him, it certainly does not satisfy me, and I am sure that it does not satisfy my hon. Friends. In fact, if the Reports came out more slowly they would scarcely come out at all. It is right that we should not consider the work of the Monopolies Commission in a vacuum. Until recently it has had the appearance of an academic exercise. We must connect it with the cost of living, because anything which will lead to more efficient production and a cheaper form of distribution, which will enable us to have a better standard of life and do something to lower our cost of living should be encouraged.
There are two tests that I would apply to the work of the Monopolies Commission in order to judge whether or not it


has been effective. First, as a result of the work of the Commission has there been any significant change in a downward direction in the price of goods with which it has been dealing? All those who have studied the resale price maintenance agreements and the Lloyd Jacob Report know full well that artificially high prices have been created by restrictive practices, and so on.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary: What has happened to the price of dental goods? They came in for a very severe handling in the Report of the Monopolies Commission. We made an Order last July; since then there has been considerable delay in implementing that Order, and I think we are entitled to know today whether there has been any significant change in the price of dental goods. That is something which affects the national economy through the National Health Service.
We are also all concerned about the high cost of house building, and I should like to know whether there has been any significant change in the price of rainwater goods arising from the Report of the Monopolies Commission. A third thing, which affects every household in the country, even though only slightly, is electric lamps. Has there been any change, any lowering, in the price of electric lamps as a result of the Commission's Report? I know that no great change is possible with these few small items which have been referred to the Commission, but at least there should be a beginning of a lowering of costs as a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission.
The second test I would apply to judge whether the work has been in any effective is this. Has there been any easier form of entry into the different trades inquired into by the Monopolies Commission? Running through the whole of these Reports was the fact that entry into these trades was restricted, and that it was almost impossible for a newcomer to enter them and so compete with the existing firms in the industry. In spite of all the capital development difficulties, I should like to know whether there has been any easement of that position, and whether it has been possible for newcomers to enter the industries. What is

more important in respect of dental goods is how far supplies have been increased to the independent dental traders.
One of the great criticisms in the Report was the fact that it was almost impossible for independent people outside the ring, outside the trade association, to get supplies. That was condemned, and we made it an illegal practice. How far have these supplies been increasing to other firms? We have heard from the President of the Board of Trade that firms—E.L.M.A., and so on—have come to an understanding with the President that they are going to reform and do something with their agreements to bring them into line with the Commission's recommendation. He said that he was perfectly satisfied with that. Here is the difference between the approach of the Government and our approach when we were in power.
We thought it right and proper to have all the safeguards of an Order to make sure that these practices were actually illegal. The Government today are resting upon a gentlemen's agreement to see that these matters are honoured. We think that we have a right to see what these changed rules are. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce to the House, either by laying them on the Table, putting them in the Library or re-printing them in HANSARD, the changed rules regarding these associations.
In dealing with the abuses of monopoly, which we all recognise exist, it is important to have a climate of opinion which is hostile to monopoly and to restrictive practices. I think that can do as much good as all the regulations we can bring in. If there is a strong feeling in the country and in every organised section of industry that monopolies are evil in themselves and restrictive practices are dangerous, I think that the work of the Monopolies Commission will be easier and more likely to succeed.
I now come to the most important part of today's debate. That is the action proposed under Section 15 of the 1948 Act. I am not satisfied with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on this matter. I regard this as the most important Section in the Act—the one which contains what teeth there are in the Act. It is not good enough for the President to say that he is thinking about this, and that he will refer, at some time in the future, collective


boycott and exclusive dealing to the Commission to make an overall inquiry. The Commission has produced four Reports and there are seven on the stocks, coming forward at the rate of two-and-a-half to three a year. At that rate, it will be over three years before the Commission finishes its work on its existing references.
It is impossible to say at the end of that time that they will then be able to deal with the collective and general side of this matter. What I think the President ought to do now is to give an immediate instruction to the Commission to make an urgent inquiry into the two evils which we all agree exist, and which have been apparent in all these Reports—exclusive dealing and the collective boycott—drop the other things with which they are dealing, and have an overall inquiry, not into a narrow section of industry but into the whole wide field of industry concerning these two particular things, and make their report on them.
I would urge the Government to make a blanketing order against these two operations throughout the whole of industry. I think that is the only effective way of dealing with this matter. I think that it is a much better way than dealing piecemeal with these comparatively insignificant industries which are now under review.
I say that we ought to know and we would know by this means how deeply ingrained are these practices in British industry. I hope that there will be no delay in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) said, it is essential to have a vigilant follow-up examination of all the industries referred to the Commission. It is no good leaving it to a gentleman's agreement. I hope that the staff will be increased.
I was rather disturbed by the statement of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that the staff had been reduced. That is an economy that we can ill afford. I hope the staff will be maintained and increased to ensure enforcement, and I hope, above all, that we shall have a broad frontal attack. So far we have only scratched the surface. We have been dealing with the minnows while the large fish have been left unmolested swimming about in their private oceans.
We ought to select a large concern with wide ramifications and refer it to the Commission on a general question following the ones dealing with collective boycotts and exclusive dealings. I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a factory in an important industry in my constituency where I believe there is a prima facie case for investigation, which I hope he will undertake. It would be invidious to name the firm, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Commission as a matter of great urgency a general question about which we are poorly informed at present, that of the prevalence, and the effect upon the expansion of our export trade, of international combinations in restraint of trade. It is not enough just to deal with the restraints within our own country. An investigation is being made in America into wide ramifications in the oil industry in which a British concern is implicated.
I should have thought this was a clear case for co-operation between our Monopolies Commission and the American Federal Institution to derive mutual benefit from a world-wide investigation into the division of markets, cartels and so on, particularly affecting the oil industry. That would be one of the most important steps that we could take, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it favourable consideration immediately.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: We have had an extremely interesting debate. Despite the fact that we have been somewhat limited by the rules of order some hon. Members have managed to make first-class suggestions by assuming that there exist powers which at present the Government do not possess. Such an assumption is very convenient in the circumstances, and perhaps I may be allowed to get away with it if I make such an assumption once or twice.
I have been rather disturbed by what seemed to be the complacent note not so much from the Government Front Bench but certainly in almost every other speech by hon. Members opposite. This shocked me a little because it was in such sharp contrast with the hullabaloo made about this by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite at the General Election in their


manifesto, Election addresses and speeches. If it is the general view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is not very much wrong, that it is very difficult anyhow to say what is against the public interest and that it is just as likely that exclusive dealing and collective boycott are good as bad, Her Majesty's Government will be in very great difficulty in doing anything about the statement in the Gracious Speech or what was contained in their Election manifesto.
Whether we like it or not, we live in an age in which there is constant interference with the forces of competition. Forces are at work, and have been at work in our economic society for a long time, which make it inevitable that that should be so. Quite apart from any rings or combines, we have the natural growth in the size of industry and the technical and marketing advantages of large-scale production, which are very great and, on the whole are nearly always desirable.
What we are concerned with is the danger of monopoly or quasi-monopoly power being used to the harm of consumers, our competitive capacity and our general economic well-being. We have been warned about this long enough ago. If we go back to 1919 the Committee on Trusts was then telling us that monopolies
might within no distant period exercise a paramount control over all important branches of the British trade.
The President of the Board of Trade read us part of the Coalition Government's White Paper on Full Employment. It is quite clear that the war-time Government saw consideration of this problem of monopolies or restrictive practices as essential to any proper planning to maintain a high and stable level of employment.
It is no less important in present circumstances to consider this whole matter not merely in relation to the maintenance of full employment, but as absolutely vital in our fight to maintain our standard of living and to pay our way in the world. If we are to get through the difficult times that lie ahead in my view we must use all the resources of our industry. I am not tonight going to argue the respective merits of private or public enterprise, but only to say that I believe that both have advantages and both have

disadvantages. This I know, that if we are to have private enterprise we cannot afford to have it limited and restricted, and being less good than it could be if we really tackled some of the obstacles that acutely exist in our present organisation.
At the risk of a rebuke from the Chair I would say that legislation is essential, but I go quickly on from that to say that, short of legislation, it is our business to get everything we can out of our present powers and from the existing Monopolies Commission. As I listened to the President of the Board of Trade, I found so many of his general sentiments in complete accord with my own and I found so many of the things that he was saying acceptable to me and, judging by the obvious approval which many of his remarks received, acceptable to most other hon. Members, that I was almost lulled into feeling that perhaps this was all right. Then I looked at questions I wanted answered and realised that he had not answered all of them, and it added up to the fact that the Government were not doing everything that they might.
Governments do not often do what they like; at best they do what they can. The question I want the Committee to consider tonight is: Are the Government doing all that they can within their present powers and have they done all that they might do? I shall seek to show that the Government have not, in fact, done all the things that were open to them. At one point in our discussion we had a very interesting account from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Nield) of the meaning attached to the word "monopoly." It would be wrong and out of order for me to argue for or against a change in the name of the Monopolies Commission. That name is laid down in the Statute and could not be altered without legislation.
I was, however, a little bothered by what he said as to whether he was saying something which was more than merely wanting a change of name; whether he was not saying, "The definition we use is not the right one, and, in effect, only if the majority of an industry were controlled by a firm or group of firms should it be subject to an inquiry." For my part,


whatever we may think bout the definition for purposes of our conversation or a definition for economists in technical terms such as would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, South, the fact remains that the definition in the Act is quite a convenient one for our purpose. On the whole, it makes it possible within the limitations in the Statute to bring in the right references.
There are many forms of monopoly, and it is interesting that the Commission have confined their attention so far to the monopoly form that we call "the ring." They have not so far reported on any industry dominated by a single firm, or where a single firm has an absolute monopoly. We must be concerned with those forms which are not in the public interest, either in the sense that consumers are exploited directly or indirectly, or in the sense that industrial efficiency is impaired or economic progress is limited. In other words, we are concerned with those things in the organisation of industry which damage or prevent progress.
The Commission are by no means concerned with the whole field, but their tasks stretch forward into what, in this apocalyptic age, might almost be described as eternity. No one has criticised the membership of the Commission or alleged that it is not wholly competent. The question is whether it is possible to speed up the work of the Commission. I believe it is. I should have thought it possible to take the organisation of the work a little further than has been suggested hitherto, by way of divisions.
If I understand the President of the Board of Trade aright, the present arrangement is that the Commission work in what we might call sub-committees. Several members do one job and other members do other jobs and the whole Commission are brought together for a final conclusion. I wonder whether the Commission could not go even further. It is when they are exercising their quasi-judicial functions that their collective presence is needed. Would there be anything wrong in putting one member at work with some of the secretariat on the job of getting the facts together, or examining and trying to get all the material, which would make progress a good deal easier?
I turn to the question of staff. I was surprised that the President of the Board

of Trade said that no increase of staff would make any difference. If my suggestion were adopted I am sure that more staff could be used and, as long as they are the right kind of people and of the right competence, I should have thought that more staff should be used. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me the present number of staff employed by the Commission and how it compares with the number employed at this time last year or at such convenient date as he has the figures for.
While I believe that the President is right in recognising genuine difficulties in references under Section 6 (2) of the Act I hope he will agree that it should be easier now to make reference under that subsection because of the inquiries that have been conducted and are in hand. As to his suggestion of contemplating a reference under Section 15, that is wholly admirable, but might I make a further suggestion to him? Is there any reason why he should not refer quite a large number of cases to the Commission in terms of Section 6 (1, a), as to the facts only?
The secretariat, working with a single member, or two members working with the staff, could get over the ground quickly. In a relatively short time the right hon. Gentleman could acquire more information on the basis of which he could make a reference under Section 15. If I understand him, he is not sure that he has enough material yet from the present reports for a proper reference under Section 15. Why not make a lot of references under 6 (1, a) as to fact only which would provide all the material necessary for a general reference under Section 15.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me if there is any insuperable difficulty in doing that. It would speed up the operation materially, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to consider that suggestion. He may have done so already and there may be good reasons why it cannot be done but I do not see any objection to that course which would certainly make for progress. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how long it takes to get the facts and how long to pass the judgment?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss) indicated dissent.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. My guess is that it takes longer to pass the judgment and to give a view than it does to get the facts. I may be wrong, but I am quite sure that it is difficult to pass the judgment and that we could save time if references were made as to the facts. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) who, in an admirable speech, said that the facts themselves if published and discussed will have an effect. There is too long a delay between getting the material and letting everybody know about it.
The Commission are concerned, first with finding the facts. I do not think any fair-minded person can read these reports without recognising that an excellent job has been done. The second job of the Commission is to pass the judgment and that is not an easy matter and it takes time. To judge the real social and economic consequences of these practices is by no means easy, but when the Commission have done their work the President and this House have the job of putting an end to anything that is found to be wrong and of trying to prevent it happening again.
In the current number of a little journal called "Cartel" there is an interesting article by Mr. Richard Evely, in the course of which he says:
Nothing could bring the Act into disrepute more quickly than a belief in industrial circles that the recommendations of the Commission can be circumvented or ignored altogether without further risk to themselves.
We have to ask whether the action taken by the President on the Reports already made has been wholly effective.
For example, let us take the Dental Goods Order. In July, 1951, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) made an Order and the industry then promised him to revise the rules of their association. As will be recollected, the holidays and the General Election intervened and the work was resumed in October. Reporting on the work of the Commission the Board of Trade published a report in March, 1952, which brought the story up to the end of 1951. This is what the Commission said in that report:
It would be premature … to assess the effects of the Commission's Report and it is not yet apparent that the Commission's

criticisms of the industry's arrangements have been met at all points. Some complaints from firms outside the Association about their inability to obtain supplies have continued.
The report goes on:
It will be the concern of the Government—in close consultation with the industry—to ensure that the guidance given in the Commission's Report is reflected in the industry's trading practices.
What happened thereafter? On 27th March, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister of Health what he was going to do. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a reply to the effect that no consultations had taken place. Those of us who remember the occasion will recollect that the hon. Lady was taken completely by surprise. I felt very sorry for her, having myself on more than one occasion been caught in much the same kind of way. But the truth was that no consultations had taken place. Again, in June, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister, who said that revised rules had been submitted and were being considered. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a firm reply on the situation as it is now.
If the situation is not satisfactory, what are the Government going to do about it? If the Government find that the Order is not being completely kept, will they seek an injunction? It may be that they can give a full answer, but it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as I think he said, that as from the time the Order was made, the practices were illegal. We want to know whether, in the view of the Government, the law is now being kept. If it is not being kept, what do the Government intend to do about it?
It is quite obvious that between the setting up of the present Government, in October, and the end of March, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East asked his question, nothing whatever had been done. One is left with the impression that probably nothing would have been done had not my right hon. Friend begun to follow up the work which he had started when he made the Order.
I have a second question to ask. In respect of the dental goods, or rainwater goods or any of them, if there are revised rules as a result of Government intervention, clearly those rules ought to be available to the House. I go further and


say that they ought to be available to the public. If the President takes action and gets what he regards as a satisfactory arrangement, while we would not for a moment doubt his word, we would be failing in our duty if we did not ask to see the document.
I would go so far as to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that it is high time that we had a system of registration of restrictive agreements. The Swedish experiment, which has been going on for five or six years, demonstrates that that is a good thing. It may be said that the Government do not have the powers, but I suspect that somewhere among their residual powers they probably possess them. If not, at any rate let the Government begin by publishing all the rules which are revised as a result of Reports from the Monopolies Commission.
Those are the considerations which we have to bear in mind. I think that the President of the Board of Trade has all the evidence that he needs to do something about two things, at least. From the four Reports, it is perfectly clear that there are two practices which are bad, at any rate, in general: collective boycott, and exclusive dealing. I am not saying that we cannot find cases of exception but as a general rule this is an undesirable thing and if there are exceptions they can be treated as exceptions. In particular I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. Is he and are the Government prepared to take steps to put a stop to the collective boycotts which still go on in relation to the Co-operative societies?
Here are two matters on which I think we could carry the President with us. After all, he named them and picked them out as being, if not proven, at any rate proven enough to go to the Commission under Section 15. Since he is so prejudiced, as he was at pains to tell us against monopolistic practices of any kind, let him say that this—which he may call a prejudice, but which some of us would like to elevate into a principle—should be put into practical operation.
The President having agreed, I think we could ask him, in those circumstances, actually to put this into operation. I would go further—and here I may not carry the President with me. I think we

have sufficient agreement about re-sale price maintenance to do something about it. It is idle for hon. Members to quote a single speech of an hon. Member on this side of the Committee when there is a White Paper in existence on the matter.
Will the President take his courage in both hands and say, "Here are three things"—if he will not say three, will he at least say two—"about which I am going to take action at once," and authorise his hon. and learned Friend to say so when he replies to the debate?
It does not appear to us that the Government have done everything they could. It does not seem to us that their sense of priority is right when we look back on the disgraceful proceedings on Monday last. We cannot believe that they are putting first things first. We hope that upon reflection they will see how wrong it is to be eager when dealing with the relatively small matter of public houses in new towns and to be both reluctant and very slow when dealing with matters which are fundamental to our economic lives and our fight for what has been described as the balance of payments.
I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an answer to the questions put from this side of the Committee and that we shall see, as a result of this debate, a new resolution and determination to free British industry from anything which handicaps it.

9.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): With the opening of the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) I was in a considerable measure of agreement. I enjoyed this debate. My main quarrel with him on his opening was that he thought the Government had given some indication of complacency. I think there is no complacency, but there may be a knowledge of the difficulty of the subject. I believe that the view that the subject is difficult is shared by those who have given it the greatest study.
I shall try in the course of my remarks to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been put by various hon. Members, although perhaps not always in dealing with their speeches, because some of the topics


occurred in several speeches. I may perhaps start with some general considerations and remind the Committee of certain facts.
The first fact of which I would remind them is the general scheme of the Act. The general scheme of the Act is, roughly, that the Commission normally consider two questions—do the conditions mentioned in the Act prevail in the particular industry which has been referred to them for consideration, and secondly, do they, or the acts done as a result of them, operate against the public interest?
When the Commission have answered these two questions, it is for the competent authority, that is to say, the Government Department concerned, to make the necessary Order or to secure a result equally satisfactory to that which would be brought about by an Order. But the sanction behind the Order so made is, by the deliberate decision of Parliament, not a criminal sanction at all. No crimes are created under this legislation; certain acts are made unlawful, and there are civil remedies.
The philosophy underlying this scheme, a philosophy common to all the parties represented in the Coalition Government which produced the White Paper on employment, and embodied in the solution put forth in the Statute, is, as has been stated by various hon. Members, that restraint of trade may be harmful but is not inevitably harmful; and what is important in deciding the public interest is its effect in the particular context in which it is found.
I say at once that a wholly different approach to the problem is possible. It would require legislation to bring it about and would therefore be out of order to discuss, but I share the view of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) that it will be unfortunate if we confine ourselves more than is necessary by that consideration. Not only did we choose a quite different approach from that which has been adopted in the United States, but I say that we were right so to do. A great many illusions are held regarding the position in the United States. I know that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) among others no doubt, has studied that legislation.
In his speech this afternoon my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a quotation from the Sherman Act of 1890. There have, of course, been subsequent important Acts modifying, and possibly strengthening, that statute in certain particulars and providing the machinery, in particular the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of the same year. There are now great enforcement agencies—the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. They can pursue the matter in the criminal courts and can also take civil action.
But let no Member of the Committee think that that has automatically solved the problem or has attained or even quickened the progress to the goal which so many hon. Members contemplate. There is still a very wide area of discretion for the courts. There is a tendency to do a great deal, in order to try to make action more effective, through Consent Decrees and good conduct codes. Nevertheless, the legal delays before one can be certain whether a particular restriction is lawful or unlawful are sometimes quite as bad as, if not worse than, the delays which have been complained of in this debate.
Undoubtedly the system has had certain successes, but the one success it certainly has not had is as a giant-killer. The great concentrations of power have certainly not been attacked by it and it may well be that an attack on collusive agreements has itself fostered the concentration of economic power.
Our approach has been quite different. It has been in accordance with the policy that has commended itself to all parties in this Committee. It was thought that co-operation between Government and industry could bring about better results if reasonable and workable solutions of monopoly problems could be reached, and that it was better to avoid a position in which the Government and industry constantly appeared in the roles of prosecutor and offender, and an effort was made, on the one hand, to trip up the business man and, on the other hand, to evade the law.
There has been another proposal put forward, and something like it was suggested in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I


think I first saw the suggestion in the "Economist." It was roughly that there should be a declaratory Act declaring certain defined practices as prima facie contrary to the public interest and leaving industries to come to the Commission for absolution. I think that it is quite clear that that would not enable us to have any speedier machinery, because the mere declaration of a practice as prima facie unlawful when, in the context of the particular case, it might not be to the public disadvantage would cause so many applications that the Commission would be just as much threatened with an excess of work as they are now.
There is another great danger in generalisation. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who wound up so agreeably for the Opposition, invited me to say that we should attack certain practices straight away and without any further reference to anyone. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about the intention of Her Majesty's Government to refer certain matters to the Commission for investigation under Section 15, it would be a very irresponsible act on the part of any Minister to pre-judge a question about to be referred to the Commission.

Mr. J. Edwards: Is it really irresponsible for the President to take action when he admits to a prejudice against monopolies and is prepared to agree that collective boycotts and exclusive dealings are in principle bad things? If he has reached that stage, I should have thought that it was a matter of his responsibility to take action.

Mr. Strauss: To take what action? To take action without any further inquiry I suggest would not be responsible, and, if the hon. Member will listen to what I have to say about the dangers of generalisation, perhaps he will think there is something in it.
Let me give an example from a slightly different point of view of the danger of the sort of generalisation which I know has attracted various hon. Members opposite and was a factor which led to a declaration by the late Government of an intention to make illegal all resale price maintenance. I was very much interested, as I am sure many other hon. Members were, to see the sequel to that declaration by right hon. Gentlemen

opposite in some of the most important papers dealing with economics. The "Economist" at first gave a general welcome to the proposals of the late Government but added, at a very early stage, that there was, of course, a case for exception in relation to such people as retailers of wireless sets and electrical apparatus, and others, who provided technical services.
Here is, however, a most remarkable example. I seriously invite any hon. Member who is interested in this subject, on whatever side of the Committee he sits, to study the article headed "Booksellers' Price War," which appeared in the "Economist" of 22nd September last year, because it was there pointed out that a tight system of resale price maintenance was operated by the book trade under the Net Book Agreement, and that this agreement was "the sheet anchor of the whole trade." I know that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will be interested to know that the first book to which this excellent system was applied was Marshall's "Principles of Economics."
What is so interesting is that here is a tight system of resale price maintenance about which there is overwhelming evidence that it is extremely desirable and that the greatest harm would be done to any amount of good causes which I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have at heart, if it were abolished.

Mr. Crosland: I think I can save a good deal of the hon. and learned Gentleman's time by pointing out that nobody on this side of the Committee said that there were no exceptions.

Mr. Strauss: I am delighted that the hon. Member, who has given some study to this subject, realises the need for exceptions to be made. The fact that there are exceptions of vital importance makes it particularly desirable that some expert body should consider what are those exceptions before Ministers declare that they are going to abolish the thing without mentioning those exceptions.

Mr. Dalton: The Government have at their disposal—as we had—the Report of the Lloyd Jacob Committee, which contained a great mass of evidence of the widespread practice of resale price maintenance in cases where no exception could possibly be urged. Is it not sensible,


therefore, that we should ban the thing under our existing powers if possible and, if not, by legislative amendment, and make the exceptions come up for judgment?

Mr. Strauss: The Lloyd Jacob Report was an important one, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends rejected it. Their White Paper definitely proposed to make unlawful things which the Lloyd Jacob Report said should remain legal.

Mr. Dalton: We went beyond it.

Mr. Strauss: That is one way of putting it; but the Trades Union Congress put it in another way. They said:
resale price maintenance itself—the practice of fixing standard prices for goods in the shops—does not necessarily work against the interests of either the shopper or the shop worker. Indeed, as the Shopworkers union has pointed out, a complete ban as proposed by the Government white paper last year might do more harm than good.
I imagine that even hon. Members opposite, if they were on these benches, would pay some attention to what the T.U.C. thought on the subject and would not indulge in the reckless legislation which they now suggest to the Government.
I have been here throughout the debate and I have a lot of bits and pieces of paper, and if I wander a little between them, I apologise. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and other hon. Members asked questions about staffing. The Commission's staff at present number 56, of whom 24 are permanent or temporary civil servants seconded to the Commission. The number varies from time to time because junior staff, typists for example, tend to come and go, but the number of senior staff has been increased, and I can assure my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite who have raised the question that there is no intention whatever that the work of the Commission shall be impeded by any lack of staff. The limiting condition at present is the need for the work to be done by the members of the Commission themselves.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and others asked certain questions about the dental Order which has been made. He asked if it were now easier for independent firms to get supplies. My information is that it is. He asked me,

in particular, whether they could get them from four companies. I think some of those four companies have their own shops and outlets and I cannot tell him how far they are in a position to supply the newcomers. What I can tell him is that we have no evidence at all that they are disobeying the terms of the Order which the late Government made. Should there be any evidence of a breach of that Order, of course, the necessary action would be taken.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: If those four firms join together and refuse supplies to any trader, that would be a collective boycott and would be illegal, but if each of those firms separately declines to give the supplies to traders, it may well be that it is not possible under the Order to prosecute. Does the Parliamentary Secretary therefore conclude that the Order is unsatisfactory and should be amended so as to give it teeth?

Mr. Strauss: I do not wish to give too hasty a reply, but I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and with others that we must not only look at the letter of the Order but must see whether it is being evaded by any subterfuge. I do not differ from hon. Members about that at all, but at the moment I have no reason to think that the Order, as an Order, is unsatisfactory or that it is being broken.
To turn to the further question about rules, a new set of rules is being studied by the Ministry concerned. These rules are being studied because we have in mind many of the matters which many hon. Members have in mind and also the dangers which have been pointed out. I know the suggestion has been made that all such rules should be registered or compulsorily published. That proposal was made when the Act was a Bill before the House, and it was rejected by our predecessors.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South also said there should be only one enforcing authority. I think he is wrong. Let me tell him why. He was frank enough to say that his criticism applied not only to the Government, but to the Government he had previously supported. I think that both our predecessors and ourselves are right, because, as I think he knows, each industry has a Government Department, known as the sponsoring


Department for that industry, which knows about it; and I think that there is not only administrative convenience but actually greater effectiveness from the point of view of enforcement in leaving the Government Department concerned as the one responsible for making an Order and for seeing that it is obeyed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) criticised the inaccurate use of the word "monopoly." As some of the Committee know, I am not myself indifferent to the accurate use of words, and I agree—and everybody must agree—that "monopoly" is inaccurately used. Nevertheless, I think there is some force in the point put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who immediately preceded me, that what we have to consider is not the Title but what appears in the Measure; and though I agree with my hon. and learned Friend on the inaccuracy, and although I think that the point that he made deserves very earnest consideration in any amendment, because of the dangers that the inaccurate use of words may have, I agree that it is a question of Title and not a question of the substance of the Act.
It was also said that an industry should know the charges brought against it. Let me say at once that I wholly agree that the industry, while it still has a chance of arguing its case, should know all the facts and allegations which the Commission may find in its Report, but I doubt if my hon. and learned Friend will go so far as to say that it should necessarily know the origin of the complaint. I think that that might be going too far. Nevertheless, the matter of procedure is one for the decision—subject to direction—of the Commission itself, and I have no doubt that any proposals for greater fairness will be carefully considered. The Commission was good enough at the beginning of its first Report to give at some length a description of the procedure adopted.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), I think it was—and I apologise for missing part of his speech—and others, including the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, raised the question whether it would be possible to use a Section of the Act for finding facts only. I think it would be possible, but I think also that

it would be a wasteful procedure, because it would not enable remedial action to be taken in that particular case, nor do I think it would much shorten the procedure. Nevertheless the question whether some use could be made of the Section he mentioned for ancillary purposes is, of course, borne in mind.
The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) used "academic" about 20 times as a term of abuse. After listening to his speech, I thought I understood the reason, but I did not agree with him.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough was, I think, the first to mention the Committee on Trusts which met shortly after the First World War. It is not uninteresting to remember that their general approach to the question was that of an inquiry, which has subsequently been the general idea behind the agreed legislation.

Mr. Dalton: What about the Co-ops.?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, I know.

Mr. Dalton: Do the Government want to boycott the Co-ops?

Mr. Strauss: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is always under the impression that he cannot be heard. The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked whether we were against the Co-ops distributing their dividends. He was so rash as to call them profits, for which I am afraid he may get into trouble with the Co-operative movement, but his right hon. Friend did his best to save him from that. Of course, the result of the inquiries made by this Commission may be embodied in an Order, or may be embodied in an equally satisfactory undertaking by the industry concerned—that is every bit as satisfactory—and the Co-ops will benefit just as anyone else. Let me give as an example the first term in the proposed agreement in the electric lamp case:
E.L.M.A should undertake that members who sell lamp components (other than patented components and ready-coiled filaments) will make them equally available to members and non-members at prices which shall not be higher to non-members than to members.
Such an agreement would completely cover the Co-ops. If any agreement of that sort is made, the Co-ops can benefit just as much as anyone else.
There are a good many other points which were raised with which I should like to deal, but the Opposition, who I understand wish to move a Motion, have requested me to sit down at this point.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote I, Board of Trade, be reduced by £5."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 288.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Adams, Richard
Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.


Albu, A. H.
Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Field, W. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fienburgh, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Finch, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, A. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Follick, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bacon. Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Baird, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian


Balfour, A.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mitchison, G. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.


Bence, C. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.


Benson, G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Murray, J. D.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, C. F.
Nally, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Brien, T.


Boardman, H
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.


Bowles, F. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Burke, W. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Parker, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Paton, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Carmichael, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Poole, C. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.


Chapman, W. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Collick, P. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Daines, P.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Davies, Ernest, (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Edelman, M.
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Evan, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.




Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Tomney, F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Usborne, H. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Swingler, S. T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
West, D. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wheatley. Rt. Hon. John
Wyatt, W. L.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thurtle, Ernest
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.


Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Alan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donner, P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Drewe, C.
Jennings, R.


Astor, Hon W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baker, P. A. D.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson Howard (Kemptown)


Baldwin, A. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Banks, Col. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kaberry, D.


Barber, A. P. L.
Erroll, F. J.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baxter, A. B.
Fisher, Nigel
Lambert, Hon G.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fort, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Foster, John
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Gage, C. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gammans, L. D.
Lindsay, Martin


Birch, Nigel
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Linstead, H. N.


Bishop, F. P.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Black, C. W.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bowen, E. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boyd-Carpenler, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Low, A. R. W.


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harden, J. R. E.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullard, D. G.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclean, Fitzroy


Burden, F. F. A.
Hay, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Butcher, H. W.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major S. F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Clarke, Col, Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hope, Lord John
Mellor, Sir John


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Molson, A. H. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Crouch, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crewder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar


Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)







Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.
Russell, R. S.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nutting, Anthony
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Odey, G. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Scott, R. Donald
Tilney, John


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Turner, H. F. L.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Partridge, E.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Vosper, D. F.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wade, D. W.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Spearman, A, C. M
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pitman, I. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, G. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wellwood, W.


Profumo, J. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Raikes, H. V.
Storey, S.
Williams, Rt. hon. Charles (Torquay)


Redmayne, E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Renton, D. L. M.
Studholme, H. G.
Wills, G.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Summers, G. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Sutcliffe, H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Robson-Brown, W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)



Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roper, Sir Harold
Teeling, W.
Mr. Heath and Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST BILL

As amended, considered.

10.10 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Bill has been fully discussed in its various stages as a result of the finding of the Select Committee to which we have referred in previous stages of the Measure. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into great detail about the contents of the Bill. I will, therefore, confine myself to saying that it follows the findings of the Select Committee, and it has been amended in one or two respects to meet points raised from the other side of the House and by hon. and right hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House. In all the circumstances I think it would be suitable if the Bill were to be read the Third time.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: This in a way is a unique opportunity for hon. Members in all parts of the House. There are very few sitting in this House today who are likely in the normal course of events to take part in another Bill dealing with the Civil List. Therefore, I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House may think it a little discourteous, in view of the position which the Crown occupies, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth, for the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal to treat the Third Reading as if it were a Measure dealing with the brewers and so smuggle it through at a late hour of the night. There are a great numbers of hon. Members who want to make a few remarks very shortly on the Civil List Bill.
I have not sought to speak on any previous stage of this Measure nor have I spoken in Committee. It would, of course, be convenient if at some time the Lord Privy Seal were to indicate on this unique occasion how long he considers it proper for hon. Members to discuss what is perhaps the central institution of the Commonwealth. Probably to him the Bill has an importance meriting about one quarter of the time devoted to other partisan Measures but I hope he will not, particularly when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose skill, good nature


and Parliamentary ability enabled him to carry through the Finance Bill without having one single Closure moved, is present, do what has never been done before on any Civil List Bill, that is, move the Closure on a discussion which must be of the greatest importance to the Commonwealth as a whole.
This is a difficult debate in which to speak because one of the most important things which any hon. Member can do is to contribute to taking the Crown out of politics. It may be said that except for one rather unfortunate corner of the United Kingdom, there is no part of the Commonwealth as a whole where the Crown is any longer used as a party symbol. At one time the Crown was a mark in some ways of privilege and domination, and those people who were associated with the Crown were so associated for the purpose of supporting the domination and privilege of the Crown in some form or another. It has been the task of all parties in the State in the last 50 years or so to try to convert the Crown into something very different—a symbol of the union of the Commonwealth.
There is no reason at all why, if this Measure has to be taken at this hour of night, the Lord Privy Seal should not also remember that the British Commonwealth, which no doubt he has stressed in his more flamboyant Election addresses, is a place on which the sun never sets, and that while it is late at 10 p.m. here it is early in some other parts of the Commonwealth. As we are discussing a question which affects all parts of the Commonwealth we should not be deterred from doing so because of the time that happens to run in this part of it. We should remember that we are speaking at the same time as other Members of the Commonwealth are sitting down to their breakfasts.
Were this debate being held 50 years ago it would be full—as hon. Members who, when the House proposes to sit late, sometimes find consolation by looking into the past numbers of "Punch," may discover—of an approach towards Republicanism. It is a curious change and a very effective one, which has been contributed to by practically all quarters of the House—I exclude only those quarters which still see fit to use the Crown for party political purposes.

It is fair to acquit the greater proportion of the Conservative Party—that we have now got to the stage at which Republicanism is not an issue. Indeed, if hon. Gentlemen reflect who would probably have been elected as President of the Republic had we had an Election in 1945, we can see that there are all sorts of reasons against pursuing such a course.
If that is so, it is of particular importance to consider how the sums of money provided under the Bill are to be spent for the benefit of the Commonwealth as a whole. Though they are contributed by the taxpayers of this country they are, in a very real sense the contribution which we, as the Mother Country, make for the maintaining of a symbol which is of value not only in this country but in the Commonwealth as a whole.
Therefore it is particularly important that we avoid, and take care in this debate to see that we avoid, the sort of misunderstanding liable to arise over the grant of large sums of this nature. I would allude for one moment to a matter which has, I know, been pursued by other hon. Members in the course of previous stages of the debate.
In last week's "Sunday Pictorial" one found that a tremendous proportion of the readers who took part in a poll voted that the sums provided in the Bill were far too high. I take the view that in certain cases the sums are too high, but the House has come to another decision, and I am not going to re-open the matter. We are considering now whether we are to pass the Bill as it stands.
What we are concerned with is exactly how the Bill is to be administered. The difficulty is the same as that which faces Members of Parliament, in that there are lumped together both salary and expenses. We are really providing a whole section of the cost of the Headship of the State. The division of the sum is entirely arbitrary. There is no particular reason why, out of the sum granted to the Crown, should not be paid the salaries of ambassadors, and why they should not be included in the Civil List. An ambassador is the personal representative abroad of the Sovereign.

Mr. Speaker: We are now on Third Reading. There is no word about ambassadors in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman must confine his remarks to what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting strictly so to do.

Mr. M. Follick: The expenses of ambassadors and Ministers of the Crown used to come out of the Civil List.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that. These are sums which no longer come out of it. I was not attempting to try to make the debate any wider; I was merely attempting to give an example of how in this Bill we are voting large sums of money to be provided for expenses which are theoretically the responsibility of the Crown but which have no more direct connection with the Crown than the salaries of ambassadors and other personal representatives.
There are a host of Palace officials and the like to whom sums are devoted. They are very proper appointments no doubt, but they are paid out of the Civil List when there is no particular logic that they should be so paid. Therefore, I particularly regret that the House did not take the opportunity of limiting the period of this Bill to give us an opportunity of looking into the matter again.
The Crown is far too important a link in the Commonwealth for us to allow very lightly a series of appointments to be made and salaries to be met out of the large sums provided by Parliament when it has no effective control or effective means of influencing the appointments. What appointments of the Royal household are made and paid for out of these sums is a question of most important policy.
We often forget in this House that the Commonwealth, of which this country is the Mother Country, consists both in its economic strength and in its actual physical capacity of far more people who are coloured than of people who are white. of far more people of a different religion from those here. The question of who should be employed in a series of appointments which have no particular or direct relation to the Throne is a matter of policy.
Looking back on the old days one can see as a great progressive move, though it seemed a small thing, the appointment of Indian officials to her household by the late Queen Victoria. That

was in its way a remarkable acknowledgment that the Commonwealth did not consist only of people who were situated in this Island. The question of who is to exercise office in the Royal Household is a far wider matter and should not be left to a group of people who are chosen in a traditional form.
It really is a question of policy that we should include in a crowd which represents all the people of the Commonwealth representatives of all the races that go to make up the Commonwealth, and it is no use offering as a Headship to a Commonwealth such as ours an apparatus of symbolism at the top exclusively devoted to one class of people just because they happen to have been those who were traditionally entrusted with the job.
As time goes on there are new forms of society. The Palace of Westminster, indeed the whole of Parliament, has survived because we have adapted our medieval forms. Equally, if we are to preserve traditions in the Palace—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is going very wide of the Bill. On Second Reading he might easily have argued that some provisions for the concepts of which he is in favour might have been included, but they are not, in fact, and the hon. and learned Member must, on Third Reading, keep to the Bill

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it ill becomes hon. Members opposite, when Members on this side of the House are trying to make a contribution in regard to a Bill—[Laughter.]—a contribution in regard to a Commonwealth matter, to sit there jeering. It almost leads me to believe that there are still some hon. Gentlemen opposite who consider in some way that the Crown should be, as it was once, a party symbol. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I shall not pursue the point on which I was previously engaged. I merely say that it seems to me desirable that the expenditure on the Household and the whole apparatus of Household, to which these large sums are directed, should be spent in such a way that it embraces the Commonwealth as a whole. Let me take just one example from the Bill, and one of the reasons why if I were opposing the Bill I should feel inclined to do so.
The provision for Royal Trustees consists entirely of representatives—the one permanent official the Keeper of the Privy Purse; and two political appointments—deriving directly from this country. How much better it would have been had the Clause been cast in a far wider form and had there been associated nominally in what, probably, are not very onerous duties, representatives of the Commonwealth as a whole.
That is not a valid reason for rejecting the Bill as a whole. It would not be proper, simply because one objects to one Clause in the Bill, to reject the Bill as a whole. But it is of the greatest importance that in voting these large sums of money—that is what the Bill ultimately does—we provide machinery in regard to the Bill which provides that lack of wealth shall not be a bar to access to the Throne.
After all, when considering the great majority of people in this country and the great majority of those in the Commonwealth, it must be remembered that there is a far lower standard of living in many parts of the Commonwealth than in this country. It would be entirely wrong if, by voting such large sums as this, we were to divorce the Crown from the ordinary life of the ordinary people.
The tact that large sums are voted—this is the reason that I advocate the passing of the Bill as it stands—does not necessarily mean that they are to be so spent as to divorce the Crown from the ordinary lives of the ordinary people. But now that we are engaged on the last stages of this Measure, I make the plea that those whose duty it is to administer the Bill shall see that the sums are so spent that there is no person in the Commonwealth, however humble his position, who feels that there exists a huge barrier of wealth which separates him from the Crown.
The value of the Crown is the value of a symbol, and the value of that symbol is entirely destroyed if we erect by means of money an artificial barrier between those whom the Crown should represent and the Crown itself. In these circumstances, I hope that we shall have from some hon. Gentlemen opposite an expression of opinion in regard to how they feel, under these new conditions,

these new changed circumstances in which we find ourselves, the whole of the Civil List provision should be administered.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I should like to pay a tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he has handled the Bill. At all times he has been dignified and helpful, and he has endeavoured to give us all the information for which our searching questions have sought.
Never once, much as he may have felt that some of our opinions were distasteful, has he in any way taken offence at what has been said. Always he has accepted that those who differed from him were quite genuine and sincere in those differences. Because of that he will get this Bill through tonight without any difficulty and without any vote against it from those who have expressed some opinions contrary to the general opinions expressed during its course.
One of the things which rather dismays me in regard to this Bill is that it arises from the Report of a Select Committee which was set up on 20th May. That was five days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement to the Joint Advisory Council on wage restraint in British industry. That statement has been used by his colleague the Minister of Labour to prevent 12 wages councils from granting increases to 1½ million people of from 5s. to 10s. a week.
My difficulty in trying to accept—as I am quite prepared to accept—the majority decision of this House and in trying to recognise that my point of view is a very small minority point of view not shared by many, is that I have to explain to men who are getting £5 10s. a week that it is very necessary, because the Chancellor said so on 15th May, that they should not press their wage claims to meet the increased cost of living, yet at the same time I am expected to justify to them the grants contained in this Bill.
It would be very difficult for anyone to convince me that it is really necessary for our Royal Family, if they are to live useful and dignified lives, to have these sums. I think I have been justified in putting forward the point of view I have expressed on Second Reading and during


the Committee stage. By the very nature of the sums that members of the Royal Family receive they are bound to live artificial lives; they are bound to lead lives far removed from the people over whom they reign.
The Queen and her Consort are a young married couple with two young children. I believe that it would be better for them if, instead of having to indulge in all this pomp. they were allowed to lead the lives of ordinary married people, spending far more time with their children and knowing the joys of the company of their children. That would probably come about if the suggestions I have tried to make during the course of the Bill had been accepted.
Nevertheless, I know that my point of view is not shared by very many, and on this matter I am quite prepared to bow to the majority point of view. Whatever opinions I may have expressed, I should like to assure the House that, just as I have no hatred, or animosity towards anybody, certainly I have none towards any member of the Royal Family. It is my wish that they should live a long and happy life, and I hope that during the reign this country of ours may not only have peace but the prosperity to which, after their trials and tribulations, the people of this country are entitled to look forward.

10.35 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I have listened to some of the debates on the sums to be given to the Royal Family with some embarrassment. It is not easy, if one is a public servant—and the Royal Family are public servants—if a clear distinction is not made between one's private life and one's public commitments. I think that it is now clear that on this side of the House we resent and do not accept the position that the Royal Family are a private monopoly of the Tory Party.
I am quite certain that in taking that point of view we are doing something for the Royal House which the Tory Party is not capable of doing. If the Tory Party had their way and could maintain the Royal Family as a centre of snobbery and colour prejudice and class prejudice that would be the end of the British Royal Family as a Royal Family in other parts of the world.
I believe that when we enter into an honourable agreement we should keep it honourably. Therefore, when we on these benches say that we recognise the services which the Royal Family render as the Head of the Commonwealth and not just as the Head of an Island, we should show good taste when we are discussing, among other things, the financial provisions for their needs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us have some."] We do not expect good taste from the type of Tory hooligans who do their best to humiliate Members of Parliament, who are also public servants. We do not expect good taste from that type of mentality, which knows perfectly well the difficulties of many hon. Members in doing their public duty.
I believe that Great Britain, although going through hard times, can see that public duties are carried out with dignity; and, therefore, I make a suggestion most respectfully. The other day, when we were discussing the maintenance of museums, it was suggested in this House that a committee of the Treasury should find out if any savings could be made in the running of our museums and art galleries because it was claimed that we could save a few hundred pounds.
I respectfully suggest to the House that the Royal Family are in many respects the victims and the prisoners of Buckingham Palace. I suggest that when we are asked to give great sums of public money at a time when the coalminers are told that there can be no advance for them and when many people are faced with the increased cost of living and other difficulties in meeting their family needs, two things are required.
The first is that if we are to have a Royal Family we ought not to have a shabby Royal Family, and we ought not to have the job done too cheaply. The second is that we should have a Family who can live in such a way that they are a symbol of their representative capacity in the face of the entire world. But that does not mean that we should hand out large sums of money blindly to keep going all kinds of archaic processes. I hope, therefore, that a clear distinction will be made between private and public spending.
I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench can later answer a very simple question that is still a matter of


controversy. I do not know whether Her Majesty, as a private citizen, is an immensely rich lady or whether it is true that her fortune has been handed back in the main for public purposes, and that, therefore, she is largely dependent on supplies granted by this House.
I think that in fairness to Her Majesty and in fairness to the taxpayers of this country it would be useful if we could have clear statement of what the position is in that respect. So far as the Royal Family's public expenditure is concerned, that is the responsibility of the House of Commons, and I hope that we are going to be sensible, but at the same time dignified and not shabby and nagging in the standards we ask for and in the supervision of how that money is spent.
I hope that the plea already made from these benches will be recognised—that the Royal Family are great public servants, that they have got to stand as the symbol of a great organisation covering the Commonwealth, most of whose citizens are coloured, not white, a Commonwealth going through very severe economic difficulties, and that some way will be found of freeing them from the old-fashioned conception that their main function is to be the centre of social life.
I hope that all young women, from whatever kind of home they come, have a good time. But I do not see why the energies of the Queen and Royal Family, when they have so many other public duties to perform, should be taken up at this time with the traditional reception of young women simply because they are rich. I think that is bad for the Royal Family. It is not in keeping with the 20th century.
Therefore, whatever criticisms we make of the sums that are being allotted are not criticisms that are being made in a disrespectful sense or a nagging sense. We believe that there is a honourable bargain to be made. We believe that the Royal Family can do a wonderful job at the present time for Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, but we are quite certain that it cannot do its job and cannot maintain its standards unless it ceases to be the prisoner of the snobbery and class privileges for which Members opposite stand.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. James Carmichael: As one who took part in the earlier proceedings let me say at the outset that I appreciate the manner in which the Chancellor has handled this debate from the very beginning. In fact, if he will permit a back-bencher to say it, I think his Parliamentary skill has been very largely responsible for the smooth passage of the proceedings up to now. Therefore, I must express my appreciation.
The second point I want to make before dealing with the Bill is that I want it to be quite clearly understood that my opposition to many of the Clauses of this Bill was not prompted by any ill-feeling or nastiness of mind against any member of the Royal Family or against any individual, because my very nature does not permit me to be nasty-minded towards any individual. I may lose my temper occasionally, but I do not have any permanent against anybody.
When I oppose this Measure I do so because I have a feeling that when we finally pass it we shall have failed to reduce the social barriers between the Crown and the common people. We shall have established those social barriers more firmly. That is my strong objection to the Bill. In these times, if we are to move towards a broader way of life, if we are thinking in terms of bringing the people of the Commonwealth together, whatever be their colour, and into closer unity with the people of this country, one of the essentials is that we should reduce the social barriers and, as far as possible, remove the class distinctions within society. Frankly, I see in this Measure a continuation of those barriers.
When we examine the allocations of money to the various members of the Royal Family, we cannot find any evidence that the approach to this Measure differs from the approach to any Measure dealing with the Civil List in former times. I do not want to go into undue detail, but in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh there is something strange in inserting a Clause of this kind which is permanent and cannot be reviewed. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) is not unduly worried—

Mr. David Logan: I should like to worry the hon. Member if he gives me a chance. As he has mentioned me, I should like to know what he means by some of the fulsome terms he has been using. Platitudes coming from people are all very fine, but words have a value. I am reminded by George Bernard Shaw's "Apple Cart" of some of the revolutionaries on the stage, but in this House I expect greater—

Mr. Carmichael: Mr. Carmichael rose—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) gave way in the middle of his speech to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division is making an intervention, but that should not be too prolonged. If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division rose, it may be that he would catch my eye later. Mr. Carmichael.

Mr. Carmichael: Mr. Carmichael rose—

Mr. Logan: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege in this House for anyone to direct adverse criticism at another hon. Member; but, when he is named, that hon. Member has a right to rise and rebut what has been said, if it is offensive. I want to say to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael)—and I do so with full knowledge of what I am saying and with responsibility, for I am as qualified as he is to use words on the subject—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Carmichael: I have no desire to pursue in the House of Commons something which would be regarded as a personal feud.

Mr. Logan: That is a godsend. The hon. Member asked for it, and he will get as much as he wants.

Mr. Carmichael: All I want to say—

Mr. Logan: Is very little.

Mr. Follick: On a point of order. Can we know, Mr. Speaker, what this private war is about?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot deal with that matter.

Mr. Carmichael: When an hon. Gentleman reaches the age of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and hates with the venom he has displayed towards me tonight, I think I am entitled to say that I do not think his remarks do him credit.

Mr. Logan: When the hon. Gentleman gets to my age he will not be able to speak at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever may be the import of these exchanges it is clear to me that we are very far from the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill. I ask the House to deal with the Bill as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Carmichael: At the outset of my speech I said I had no desire to be intolerant of anyone, and I want to keep to that.

Mr. Logan: Apologise to the Member for the Scotland Division.

Mr. Carmichael: I will pursue my speech in my own way and time.
I have every desire to be as brief because I have already taken sufficient part in the deliberations of this Bill. Before I was interrupted I was making the point that from the very beginning of the proceedings of this Bill we have had the Clauses presented in a manner similar to the contents of any Civil List Bill of the past.
As far as the Clause relating to the Duke of Edinburgh is concerned, I think it is quite wrong that its provisions are for all time, and I pleaded for an Amendment to have the matter examined every 10 years. It is quite wrong to give an allowance for life without knowing what is going to happen in the next 10 or 20 years. That is one of the outstanding weaknesses of the Bill. The social barriers are as wide as ever.
It is not so much the sum of money but the way in which it has been allocated that leaves an impression which bewilders ordinary people. The Government are putting forward a Measure which in total will result in handing over to the Royal Household in one way or another more than £1 million, and at the same time they are telling ordinary people that the economic condition of the country is so serious that even the poorest workers in the land cannot make an


application for an increase in wages. I know it can be argued that the total sum for the Royal Household is infinitesimal compared with the national income, but we have to consider the attitude of the ordinary people.
We have tried on a number of occasions to amend this Bill. Strangely enough the only Amendments accepted by the House were those to increase the money for the Royal Household. No other Amendments were considered. Therefore, I make my protest in the mildest manner I can against the way in which this matter has been handled. If we had been given more details about the allocation of the moneys there might have been no difficulty at all, but I must register my protest at the way this Bill has been handled from the beginning.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: From some of the remarks of my hon. Friends there seems to be a feeling that although we have not been able to get what we wanted we should support the Measure. Although I do not agree with some of the Clauses, I take the same view that the Labour Party took when it opposed the Civil List in 1937.
I agreed with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), but what she said is not in the Bill, and it is not clear that the Bill would be administered as she desires it. I should have thought that because we have not been able to influence the House in favour of a more simplified form of Monarchy by reducing the expenditure and limiting the paraphernalia responsible for dividing the Crown from the people we could have made an even bigger protest than we have done.
I am particularly opposed to one or two of the Clauses. This is not because I feel any personal hostility to those who bear the responsibility of being members of the Royal Family. I have had the opportunity of speaking to Her Majesty the Queen. and I am sure that she is a gracious woman and would desire to follow her calling with all the dignity that is possible.
At the same time I believe that the more lavish and luxurious the standard imposed upon Royalty the further is Royalty removed from the mass of the people. I believe that no position is

more important than that of Prime Minister. Yet the fact that the Prime Minister holds that position, with a special income, does not of itself mean that he lives in a state which divides him from the people. But that result does follow in the case of Royalty under our present system.
My objection to some of the provisions of the Bill is that I do not believe that the problem has had the long, careful examination that it requires. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that before the Bill was introduced he assured himself that all reasonable economies had been made. I have never been able to accept that. As I said on a previous occasion, it is impossible to examine in the space of nine days the ramifications of £500,000 of expenditure. Therefore, I think that this matter has not been adequately considered. As the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has said, when matters are introduced for debate at late hours it is impossible for us to give them adequate consideration.
I would particularly mention the Clause of the Bill which gives to Princess Margaret an additional £9,000 in the event of her marriage. I was surprised by the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in justification of this. He said the other day that people talk about the amounts given to Royalty as though all the money were going to the Queen. I do not believe that the mass of people think in those terms, but I do think that the man and woman in the street questions individual items.
They see clearly that Princess Margaret is to get £6,000 a year, or £120 a week, and is to be given an additional £9,000 a year in the event of marriage, making £300 a week. They wonder why this should be so. I should have liked to see the right hon. Member for Ipswich in revolt, but instead of that he suggested that it is necessary to give Princess Margaret a wider choice by giving her this additional sum. Although, like him, I am a bachelor, I do not share that view. I think that there ought to be periodical examination of the expenditure.
There could be considerable reduction of the Royal Palaces, and they could be used for better purposes. I do not fully agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who asked


that Buckingham Palace should be used for flats, but I can think of many—

Mr. Logan: On a point of order. Is it in order for bachelors to deal with matrimonial affairs?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me to decide.

Mr. Yates: I do not think my hon. Friend should try to restrict my choice—

Mr. Logan: I was wondering what my hon. Friend knew about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the hon. Member know what he is talking about?] I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Yates: I remember that when the Civil List was discussed in 1937 Amendments were moved by Members of the Labour Party. One was that one of the Royal Palaces should be used as a convalescent home, another as a university. There are other ways of using them, and we might have considered in this enlightened democratic age a new approach to this problem

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member that he can only at this stage discuss what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Yates: I was really referring to the amount of money in the Bill which covers the Royal Palaces, but I will not pursue that line any further, except to say that in my own constituency in Birmingham questions are put to me from time to time about why large sums of money should be paid out to individual members of the Royal Family.
I have also been asked this question: "If we want to get a pension increase or some special consideration in a certain case, we have to work hard for it and then perhaps in the end we do not succeed in getting the benefit to which we are entitled. Yet Parliament is willing to vote these items of expenditure quite readily."
I myself am trying at the present moment to persuade the Secretary of State for War to do justice to a woman whose husband has been missing for 10 years, and how difficult it is. Yet here we are passing a Bill which represents

about £500,000 of expenditure when the country is being asked to bear excessive burdens, and when men and women are asked to refrain from making applications for increased wages.
It is morally wrong and I am opposed to it. I should have thought that we could have said tonight: "Let us refer this back. Let us defer it until we get a more sane approach to this problem, a more sensible, simplified and dignified form for the Headship of our State; one that will be in conformity with the difficult times in which we are living."

11.9 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I was rather surprised at the brevity, not to say the brusqueness, with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer initiated the debate this evening. He seemed to imply that any of us who wished to take part in it could only be doing so for frivolous reasons.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think the hon. Lady would have learned my attitude and motives towards the Bill and to the House if she had been present more frequently during the debates on this Bill. I have sat through every debate on it. I have not had the privilege of seeing the hon. Lady often, and I am only too glad to hear her contribution now.

Mrs. Castle: I am delighted to know that the eye of the Chancellor is for ever searching me out in the remote corners of this Chamber. I only wish that he occupied your Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I should be in a very happy position.
I can assure the Chancellor that I have from time to time slipped into the Chamber to hear his contributions, and I have also followed them in the records of this House, which is the normal custom of busy Members. But I think the right hon. Gentleman is merely trying to create one of his clever tactical distractions to evade my accusation, which he knows is correct, namely, that his assumption was that we have had full debates and that we ought to allow the Bill to go through "on the nod."
I suggest to the Chancellor that the very fact that we have had quite detailed debates is an additional reason why we should have a further one tonight. It is as a result of our debates in this House


and the inevitable limelight that they have thrown on the whole question and status of the Monarchy in this country now that the people of this country have begun to think about the problem and to express their own point of view.
Since the first debate took place we have had some quite original expressions of opinion from the people at large and from our own constituents in the form of letters and conversations which have come as a surprise to some of us—as a revelation that the people of this country have not—[Interruption.] May I try and make this point in spite of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Booth by)?

Mr. Michael Foot: He is jealous of the "News of the World."

Mrs. Castle: I suggest that the expressions of opinion which have come to us from our constituents have come as a considerable surprise to many of us, because we have found that the reaction of the general public to the proposals in this Bill are by no means the conventional ones that hon. Members opposite have always assumed were the reactions to Royalty in this country. I think we have discovered that the people of this country, when they have thought about this problem in the light of this Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would point out that this is not the occasion for a Second Reading Speech. On the Motion for the Third Reading, speeches should be directed to what is actually in the Bill.

Mrs. Castle: I do not see how I can more directly relate my remarks to what is in the Bill than when I say that these proposals have been discussed and commented on by our constituents. Must that not be a guide to us for action tonight, when we must decide our attitude on the Bill and whether we are to vote for it or not on Third Reading?
I would suggest that some of us have occasion to think very seriously. in the light of the comments of our constituents, before we cast a vote tonight or give consent to the Bill. We should reflect for a moment on the revelations we have had of popular feeling on the Monarchy at the present time.
My experience—and, I think, the experience of most hon. Members, if they are honest—is that we have discovered that when the ordinary person in the street has been discussing Royalty and the Throne in this country, and what kind of provision we should make for the Royal Family, he or she has shown, it is true, the respect and affection for the Royal Family that we always knew was the case. But such discussion has also shown that that respect arises much more from a sense of nearness to the Royal Family than from a sense of remoteness, and that we endanger the position of the Royal Family in the minds of the people if we believe that we must create round the Royal Family an edifice which will enable them to be, in some majestic way, and financially also, remote from the ordinary lives of the people.
In this respect, the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussions on the Bill, when they seem to imply that any desire by hon. Members on this side of the House to consider the proposals in some detail, at some length and with some seriousness, is simply an attitude of disrespect, reveals once again that the Conservatives are the worst defenders of tradition.
What they always seek to do with it is to ossify it instead of adapting it to changing circumstances. We have had so often in our history occasions when a short-sighted attempt to perpetuate a tradition beyond which the times and the circumstances have moved has undermined that tradition, and has weakened the very cause for which Conservatism was trying to fight.
We must recognise tonight, as I do not think has yet been adequately reflected in our debates on the subject, that the country is in a period of fundamental transition, that we are not in a static period. It is rather an anachronism that we should be presented in the Bill with proposals which make provision for the whole duration of what everybody expects to be a long reign.
With every decade that passes, there are profound changes in our way of life and our way of thinking. For the Conservative Party to imagine that we can make provision for what may be a period of 40 or 50 years and expect it to endure, is a completely unreal assessment of the


situation. In attempting to do that, we are in the Bill ignoring the two profound changes that have taken place in this country since the war.
The first of those changes is a change in the position of Britain in relation to the rest of the world. If any of us ever had any doubts about that, by the end of next week, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another transformation, has finished with us, we shall have no doubts then that we are a very poor country and that we are still failing to face up to how poor we are.
We are a country that has to make psychological and practical adjustments to the realities of the post-war world. We shall have some more of those painful adjustments thrust upon us, no doubt, next week. We have to recognise that our contribution in the modern world will be one which will depend much more upon our national character than upon any national wealth. That has been expended, and it is as a poor country that we shall have to go forward in the future, recognising that every mouthful of bread we eat has to be earned by harder and more difficult toil than we have known up to now.
If that is true, why do we keep up a pretentious apparatus which is inconsistent with that situation? We have had to cut our commitments in more than one direction in order to achieve the reality instead of merely the appearance of reality, and I think it is not showing any disrespect for the monarchy—in fact, on the contrary—to suggest that if we, as a whole people, make these adjustments, it must make them too; and that we must turn to our monarchy in future years and expect it to rely much more upon its personality than upon the pomp and the pretentiousness that might have been appropriate to a pre-war Britain that still believed itself to be well off.
The second big change which has taken place in this country has been an internal one. Since 1945 we have had a social revolution, a very profound one, and a very necessary one—one which has given us a new vigour and a new sense of comradeship among our people. Under the Labour Government we made great strides towards the establishment of equality in this country.
We began to carry into effective practice in our national life the conception of human equality. It was resisted by hon. Members opposite, but it was, none the less, achieved.

Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order. May I ask whether this is in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has enjoyed considerable latitude and is really making a Second Reading speech. I have called attention to the fact that on Third Reading speeches should be strictly directed to what is in the Bill itself.

Mrs. Castle: Of course I am very anxious to keep in order and within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was just pointing out that the Bill as it stands is failing to meet that new mood and achievement of equality we have attained in this country.
I am suggesting that if the aim of our social and economic organisation today is, as I profoundly believe it should be, to put the emphasis on the value of human personality instead of disparities of wealth, our Monarchy should not, in that new situation, remain a symbol of personal wealth and private privilege. We should ask ourselves whether we are doing any service to the institution of monarchy in this country, which I personally want to see perpetuated, if we fail to reflect in our provision for that monarchy the new ideas and new expressions of social relationships which are taking place throughout the rest of the community.
I suggest that that is something we should bear in mind when considering this Bill and its provisions. If we look at the profound changes since 1945 in the organisation of our economic life and in the social standards we have introduced—[Interruption]—I ask your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I have taken great care to keep within the bounds of order, although I do not expect hon. Members opposite to see the relevance of a sustained argument, which I am sure you do.
I would point out to the House that when we are voting these sums of money—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said, do not


clearly distinguish and are not clearly divided between personal and public expenditure of the Crown—we have to remember that as a result of legislation passed in this House various financial Measures have created a state of affairs in the distribution of income whereby it is now very difficult for any private citizen to be left with a net income, after payment of Surtax, of much more than £4,000 or £5,000 a year.
That is the expression of the desire of Parliament and what it feels is decent provision for a private citizen. I would agree that that has not yet completely achieved the equality of income and the financial position I would personally like to see, but, after all, we had only begun this social revolution, and it is quite true that there are gross inequalities of wealth.
It is quite true that the social life of this country still reflects gross inequalities of wealth, because it is possible to side-track the intentions of financial Measures which are introduced by living on capital. Many people have done it to keep up standards which otherwise would be impossible. I suggest that in this Bill we are making an assumption that certain social and financial inequalities in this country will persist and should persist in order that the Throne, in the form in which we are trying to establish it in this Bill, should reflect a social division in this country which is in process of rapidly disappearing.
Certainly we on this side of the House are pledged to the disappearance of those social conditions and great inequalities of wealth. I suggest that those of us who feel most strongly that the Amendment moved from this side of the House was right, namely that we should not in this period—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot now discuss the Amendment, whether it was right or wrong.

Mrs. Castle: I think that I am in order in explaining to the House the sort of difficulty some of us face in deciding whether we should support the Third Reading of this Bill or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is not in order in discussing the Amendment. She can put forward arguments why this Bill should not be supported on Third Reading, but they must be arguments dealing with what is actually in the Bill.

Mrs. Castle: I am arguing that the reason why this Bill in its present form is not desirable is because it provides for a whole reign which we have agreed, and which the Select Committee agree, will be probably a very long reign. I suggest that a serious drawback in the present form of the Bill is that it does not provide for periodic and frequent adjustment of financial provision for the Monarchy in relation to circumstances. I suggest that, as may very well happen in the next 10 years, if further changes are made in this country through more equal distribution of property, in order to obtain a more equal society—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is now repeating arguments which she has already advanced to the House.

Mrs. Castle: I suggest that the Bill as it stands makes the monarchy not so much a symbol of the whole people as the representative of that 1 per cent. that still owns nearly half the wealth of the country.
I want to see the monarchy firmly grounded on a popular basis. It will not be grounded on that basis if we expect the Royal Family to behave not merely as dignified public representatives of our Commonwealth but also as wealthy private citizens. That is the danger of the Bill in its present form, particularly at a time when we know that very great hardships lie ahead of our country and people, hardships which are probably more serious than we have yet fully realised.
If the Chancellor is going to give us next week that grim picture it may be too late, if we have voted for this Bill, to make the necessary adjustments. I say that the monarchy achieved its strongest position in the people's hearts at a time when there was the least pomp and ceremonial attached to it, namely during the war.
It was at the very time when the Royal Family put on the uniform of the ordinary people of this country and of the Services, when they dressed so indistinguishably from their subjects, when they accepted the standards of rationing and of hardship which everybody else was accepting, when they were not kept segregated by standards of luxury to which ordinary people could never aspire, that


the monarchy in this country became fortified in the people's hearts. If in the period of the war, when the rest of the community was struggling for sheer existence, the Royal Family had kept up a standard of life and a level of living out of touch with the common people, the monarchy today would not be as strong as it is.
That, I suggest, is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking for now: that an unreal standard of life should be maintained by the Royal Family when the rest of us are engaged in an economic struggle as desperate as the military struggle was during the war. In refusing to face these realities, the party opposite is doing great harm to an institution which has played an important rôle in the unification of our national life and can go on doing so if we are prepared to look at its rôle quite dispassionately, without all the mystique with which hon. Members opposite try to surround it, and look on the Crown as the servant of the community, which gives it the status it enjoys.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: It is not with any wish to curtail the debate that I rise to speak now, and I hope that my hon. Friends behind me realise that it is not my intention to do so. I did not follow the Chancellor because I felt that either upstairs or here we seem to have made the same speech several times over, and I thought it might be helpful to my hon. Friends if I waited a little and perhaps helped to clear up some of the misunderstandings which seem to have arisen as a result of discussion of the Bill.
If I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), it really is not true to say that the Amendments which have been accepted and were, in the main, put down either by myself or my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), make any more funds available. They make it more specific where those funds were to go to, which was what we were anxious to make sure and that the rather irregular way the Chancellor suggested the matter should be handled should not be allowed to prevail. I understand that he was lost in a maze of legalities and

was taking a shot at it on Second Reading.
I would say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that I studied the "Sunday Pictorial." I am bound to say that I was not much impressed by the result. I thought it was a poor result whichever way it was looked at, and it should not be allowed to go out from this House that anybody who studied the figures was impressed by them because they did not give rise to any result whatever. I did not find in my examination on the Select Committee that there were all sorts of people included for remuneration or engagement on the Civil List who should not be there.
I was ragged a bit by the Chancellor, on the Second Reading, for my remarks about barnacles. He said I was barnacle-minded. That may be so. I find that in running a business successfully it is essential to cut the barnacles off the bottom. But I do not want to repeat what I said. I want to assure my hon. Friends that in the time available—we had nine Sittings in a limited time—we did our best to ensure that there were no barnacles and that proper provision was made for barnacle cutters. [An HON. MEMBER: "No such thing."] One of my hon. Friends says there is no such thing as a barnacle cutter, but I am sure the House understands what I mean.
On the other hand, I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch said about the 10-yearly review. We all, without exception, on this side of the House, think it is most regrettable that the Government did not accept our proposal that there should be a 10-yearly review. There is nothing unreasonable in it. Every hon. Member on this side, and in my view, quite a number of hon. Members opposite, took that view; and certainly I have been told by people outside the House who do not share my political views that a 10-yearly review was a very reasonable suggestion. It is most regrettable the Government did not accept that proposal, but there it is.
I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) into what I would call the "Windsor Bachelor Stakes," but suffice it to say that I took the view which I did about Princess Margaret because I


felt that the important thing was that she should be completely independent to marry whom she liked and when she liked. I do not want to do more than repeat what I said then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) appears to have been immersed in letters. All I can say is that I have had only one letter on the subject. I have tried to find out whether other right hon. Members have had many letters and I gather that their postbags have not been very heavy. I do not mind admitting to the House that my letter was mainly concerned with whether Queen Victoria preferred port wine to whisky. In any event, there are always people who write letters.
I do not want to detain the House further. In the main, the Bill before the House is what the majority of the Committee on the Civil List asked, and to a certain extent it meets what the minority wanted. We regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal with the Duchy of Cornwall money in the way we wanted. As I have said, we regret that there is to be no 10-yearly review.
The Bill is not entirely satisfactory, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said—and I think we all feel that what she said was true: we do not want this business done on the cheap. It should be done properly, it should be done with due liberality and with proper respect and also so that there is no unnecessary expense. I entirely support her view on the snobbery issue. I wish I had remembered some of the things which I wanted to say on Second Reading and then forgot. I am sure that if we cut a lot of the snobbery out we could make the Queen's life very much more enjoyable. I could think of a lot of things I could do with garden parties and receptions which would make them far more entertaining for the Royal Family than they are at present, and I should have hoped, had I—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not now going to remember his Second Reading speech.

Mr. Stokes: I was merely regretting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I forgot it.
Having said that, I conclude by saying that had the Government put in the Bill

the things which we wanted, many of the points to which many of us take exception might have been modified in such a way as to make the whole situation meet with far greater popular approval. I accept the Bill in the main as implementing what the majority view is and a great deal of what the minority wanted, and I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against the Third Reading tonight.

11.40 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I have not had any opportunity of speaking on this matter during its earlier stages. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), although I have not received a large number of letters, but from a number of conversations during the course of the Bill, and from what has been said in the Press and by the B.B.C., there has arisen a fairly wide sense of opinion on the whole matter which, as far as my constituency is concerned, I should like to express.
After all, we are being asked to pass a Bill which provides for fairly large sums, all the larger when compared with the weekly incomes which large numbers of people have to do their best to live on, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said. I felt sorry, in a way, that some of the reductions moved in Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) were so large, because if they had been smaller the votes he would have accumulated would have been larger, and larger votes for smaller reductions would have accorded with the opinions of a large number of people. However, we cannot amend the Bill any further, nor discuss the Amendments which might have been made.
What matters now for the ensuring years is very largely the way in which the Bill is to be administered. The administration will depend largely on the Sovereign and her Consort. As the years go by an immense opportunity is being presented to them, and I hope that they will take advantage of it, and that they will respect what I believe to be the will of large numbers of their subjects. I hope that in their administration they will move with the changing times in which we live.
I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—as I think every Member is—in hoping that none of us will be here when the next Civil List Bill is considered. We are at the beginning of what we all hope will be a very long reign, and many of us have speculated whether a new Elizabethan era is dawning. History can never quite repeat itself. The conditions in the first Elizabethan era were different for a variety of reasons.
We are now in a quite different situation in a world where great changes are going forward, and, I too, believe that it is much more likely, in the course of this reign, that we shall find ourselves extraordinarily poor, and that during the reign of Her Majesty we shall learn what it means to live graciously and creatively with a far less total of national wealth than we had expected, and lead each other to expect.
That being so, I believe there will have to be with many of us, and particularly with those who hold any sort of leading position or position which gives them any authority over any department of our public life, a great simplification in our living and much less respect for everything which is in any way connected with material wealth. I believe that Her Majesty and her Consort during what we all confidently hope will be their long reign in these changing times will need to give to our whole community the leadership in that simplification and in that lessening of the emphasis and the attention that is paid to material wealth.
Therefore, as we now pass a Bill which enables Their Majesties to command large sums of money I most earnestly hope that they will feel and sense the opinions of large numbers of their subjects and will, as the years go by, progressively bring about marked simplifications in the whole of the living with which they now find themselves surrounded. If they then take advantage of this to make voluntarily some part of the economies which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire would have imposed upon them compulsorily, I believe they will in that way endear themselves to their subjects and preserve the traditions by which the Crown in Britian has maintained its contact with the lives of the people and with the changing times in which we live.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said that if we had been having this debate 50 years ago it would have been most likely that in the course of it there would have been a considerable expression of republican feeling. I am sure that that is so. I am equally sure that there is very great significance in the fact that both in the House and outside where these matters are at present being discussed there is virtually no feeling for republicanism at all. If we stop for a moment to consider the reasons for that virtual disappearance of republican feeling we may find in that consideration some excellent reasons why all hon. Members, even including those who have some reservations about some of the points in the Bill, wholeheartedly support its Third Reading.
Broadly speaking, there are two reasons for this change in public sentiment over the last 50 years or so towards the institution of monarchy. The first is, very naturally, the behaviour of successive Monarchs themselves and the way in which that behaviour has to an increasing extent endeared the successive Heads of our State to their people. That behaviour has had two characteristics.
First, the monarchy has grown in respect among very great numbers of our people because, unlike monarchies in many other countries, it has progressively during this century dissociated itself from the hurly-burly of the political life of the country. In other countries that has not been so, and perhaps that is why in many other countries the monarchy has not endured as the British monarchy has and even when it has endured, has not so firmly rooted itself in the respect and affections of the people.
Secondly, the monarchy has above all endeared itself by the process which perhaps I may, without disrespect, call getting out of the glass case in which Monarchs in the 19th century and earlier locked themselves, within the sight of their people but outside the hearing of their people and beyond contact with them. In discussing the Third Reading of this Bill I think that we ought to record the way in which His late Majesty King George VI and his Queen, when London was being savagely attacked from the air, identified themselves with their


fellow-Londoners in taking whatever rained from the skies.
I think the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) made a powerful point when she said that at a moment when the monarchy had less pomp and circumstance attached to it, and was doubtless spending much less a year, than at any other time, the monarchy was closer to the people, and stood higher in their regard, than when they were surrounded by pageantry, pomp and circumstance, and other things which involved large expenditure. One reason why I believe that the monarchy of this country has established for itself a permanence which others have failed to establish is that it has come close to the people.
It has been said that His Majesty King Farouk of Egypt made a prophecy which is intrinsically wise, and which perhaps has grown in wisdom because of the events of which we have read today. He has been quoted as saying that in 50 years' time there will be only five kings left in the world—the King of Britain, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts, the King of Diamonds, and the King of Spades. I think he was probably right in that statement. Doubtless at this moment he has an intense feeling that he was right.
We would, because of this, want to see continuation of those trends which have established these close ties between the monarchy and the people. If it be true, as I believe, that it is the escape of the Monarch from the glass case, the intermingling with the people, the identification of the life of the Monarch with the life of people of similar age in the community, that trend ought to be continued. If we do see that, as I hope we shall, and if as a result there is less expenditure upon the trappings of monarchy and not on the monarchy itself, that will be to the good.
I hope we shall see continuation of the process of doing away with identification of the monarchy with one class. It is inconsistent with the spirit of our times, as some of my hon. Friends have said, and as I believe some hon. Members opposite believe in their hearts, to associate the monarchy with that archaic survival—the presentation of debutantes—for which some of the money we are voting will undoubtedly be used. That

has become, on the part of certain tradesmen and certain other people, what might almost be described as a money-making racket. It is a great pity that we permit the continuation of a condition by which the great respect which the country has for the monarchy should be exploited because the desires of people who seek to derive a special cachet that they do not deserve on their own merits are exploited by others.
One other reason why the people of this country have changed considerably. during the last 50 years, their views about the monarchy is that they have had a good look at the social climate of some other countries which have no monarchy. A good deal of the republican sentiment of 50 years ago was based on an antipathy to hero worship. There were many serious and sincere people—

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of order. Is there one law, Sir, for males and one for females in this House? My hon. colleague the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) was interrupted constantly as being out of order on a Third Reading speech, and my colleague who is now speaking apparently can roam round the world.

Mr. Speaker: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) was saying, and although he seemed to me to be getting somewhat away from the Third Reading of the Bill, I could see a connection with the Third Reading. However, I was about to ask him to restrain his eloquent speech a little more closely within the limits.

Mr. Mikardo: I will do that with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether the point of the intervention of my hon. Friend was to express regret that our mutual hon. Friend had her speech interrupted, or to express regret that I was being allowed to continue with mine. In either case I am glad to abide by the rules of order. I was adducing what I thought to be a germane argument as to why we should support this Bill, but I subject my view to your ruling.
I was addressing myself to some of my hon. Friends who, I know, have sincere reservations about the constitution of monarchy and about this large amount of money. What I was trying


to say to them was that they ought not necessarily to imagine that we should have a less expensive apparatus of the Head of the State if we had a president instead of a Queen. In some other countries where they have carried republican sentiment to the extent of having a republic, they have a relationship between the community and the Head of the State which, in my view, is inferior to that which prevails in this country and which results in a great deal more expense than we are asked to vote in this Bill.
It may be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact, that in the present stage of development of people—perhaps in due time we shall all develop out of it—a great many feel an urge for an emotional outlet which they want to project upon somebody whom they can hold in specially high regard. The monarchy provides a source—and, I think, an extremely good source—for that projection of this emotional feeling.
I think that the demonstrations of loyalty to the monarchy, which are such a common feature of life in London, are much healthier than the tearing up of directories and the throwing down of ticker tape in a city like New York, upon people much less deserving of honour than the Royal Family.
I would say to some of my hon. Friends and to the people outside who have some reservations about the hero-worship of monarchy that I would sooner have that than the hero-worship of strange people like film stars and others that goes on in some other countries. I support this Bill—though not without some reservations about its content—because, on the whole, I think, that we are helping to further an institution valuable in itself and giving the country a good return for the money involved in the Bill.

12.1 a.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I shall try to confine my remarks to what is in the Bill. My constituents do not appear to be interested in the Bill: I am sorry to say that I cannot join my colleague and say that I have received many letters about what is in the Bill. I have received not a solitary letter—and I represent a hard-pressed, dark, bleak area of iron and steel. Although I have

seen no visible interest in what is in the Bill on the part of my constituents, I can only say that if some of the money in this Bill is spent in Coatbridge, they will flock in their thousands to see Her Majesty or anyone else connected with the Royal Family to the extent that I, if I made an appearance at all, would be a completely forgotten number.
I try to maintain a sense of proportion. I am glad—and so are my constituents—that we are in a country where we can actually discuss this, because in the country that has had that great social revolution that so appeals to my colleague from Blackburn the Kremlin costs them a great deal more than what is in this Bill and that social revolution has failed to bring them that distinction between the luxury life of the Kremlin and the life of the people there. So I am glad to know that we are all freely able to state our opinions about the Bill.
I do not agree with what is in the Bill; nor do I agree that the Amendments would create the conditions that their sponsors claim they would. I think it grossly unfair to put aside this sum of £475,000 without putting down a review date, because I am certain that that is a great amount, which brings very great responsibility to our young Queen. I think that in those circumstances the greater the amount the more we expect her, willy-nilly, to try to accomplish.
I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) make a plea that the Queen should be relieved of a great many of these duties—a plea which I wholeheartedly agree with—and then go on to say that she should spend some months of the year in Canada or South Africa or some other far-removed spot where she could not enjoy a mother's dearest possession in life—the companionship and fellowship of her young children while they were growing up. As we impose this extra money, we are willy-nilly imposing the extra responsibilities that no woman should have to shoulder. I should tremble if any of my young married daughters had the responsibilities placed on them that our young Queen has.
It is said that the Royal Family themselves could so shape things as to make it easier for themselves. I doubt it. It is


very difficult to refuse invitations. Every one of us here knows that when we are told how much good we can do if we will only go to such and such a meeting, or open a sale of work, it is very difficult indeed to refuse. Especially is this so for those who have the high sense of public duty and honour that the Royal Family have always had. Therefore, I think that there should have been provision for a review and that Parliament should have insisted upon it. I do not think that we should have committed ourselves to these amounts for all time.
As a wife, I view with some trepidation a husband getting £40,000 annually for life—irrespective, I take it, of whether he is still a married man, a widower, or married to someone else. I should not like things to be made so comfortable for my husband on my departure. I do not think that we should have been so overwhelmingly generous to the young Prince. There is a certain joy in carving out from one's own purse the welfare and upbringing of one's children, and I am quite certain that this could have been shouldered very willingly by those who have shown themselves always so willing to sacrifice their personal pleasures for the good of the people.
I therefore deplore that in the Bill there should be a complete lack of time specified for reviewing the position. The Government have been too generous and, in their generosity, they have imposed responsibilities that they should have considered before fixing the amounts. I am sorry that I cannot agree to the proposals in the Bill. I hope that sooner or later reviews will be made and that not only will the amounts be cut down but that automatically—and what is more important—there will follow with the decreasing of these amounts a great decrease in the work and responsibilities of the Royal Family.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Whatever divisions there may be as to the merits of the Bill, I am confident that I express the sentiments of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say we hope that Her Majesty will have a long and happy reign. None of us can forget the finality with which the Royal Household

dedicated itself to the work of the nation in the dark and anxious days of the war, neither can we dismiss from our minds their very deep religious convictions, which act as a moral stimulus to us in the days through which we are now passing.
In the discussion of this Bill we ought not to be too sensitive in examining the expenditure of the Royal Household, which is the purport of the Bill. I recognise that there are hon. Members opposite who are deeply sensitive that we should be discussing a matter of this character. I do not think that that would reflect the opinion of the Royal Household; I do not think it endorses such an attitude of mind and to that question I should like to direct a few thoughts.
I believe that they are sufficiently democratic to believe that a periodical re-examination of the circumstances of expenditure involved is something which would be in alignment with the present economic difficulties of the country, to which the Chancellor has directed our attention. He has indicated quite clearly what is happening. Only a few days ago in this House he reminded us of the impending grave economic crisis. It is extremely difficult to understand the logic of imposing a wage freeze on 1½ million workers and, at this hour of grave economic difficulty, agreeing to the amount involved in this Bill. If this decision is to stand, I submit that we ought to give due consideration to a re-examination of the decision in respect of the 1½ million workers to whom the Chancellor has denied the right to enjoy what has been resolved and determined by an arbitration board.
I believe that the burden in respect to the Crown should be lessened. If the economic crisis is such as he asks us to believe—if it is a real economic crisis—there should be sacrifice on the part of each and every one of us, from the highest to the lowest in the country. I have no doubt as to his good faith that the economic position is so grave. Even hon. Members of his own Government, particularly Members of the Cabinet, have accepted a reduction in their salaries. That being so, I think it is a demonstration of good faith in regard to the present economic situation but, I suggest that we ought not to agree to this Measure—


although we can support it—without the qualification that there should be a periodical review, as suggested by the Opposition. I ask that the re-examination should take place as soon as possible, even though this Measure may receive the assent of this House.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I should like to join the voice of the great City of Manchester to those who have supported the Third Reading of this Bill.
I feel that in the discussion of the Bill there has been a complete misapprehension as to the position. I join wholeheartedly with my colleagues on this side of the House in condemning the Government of the day for their failure to recognise the justifiable wage claims of the workers in industry who have well earned those claims. But I cannot reconcile support for the justifiable claims of workers in industry, which are a political or an economic question, with refusal to support this Measure, for it refers to the monarchy, which is outside the sphere of politics.
This Measure should be supported because it reflects the dignity of the institution of the monarchy which is universally supported throughout this great country and Commonwealth. There can be no argument about that. North, south, east and west, the Queen and her Consort and the members of the Royal Family are beloved and held in the highest affection. This Bill provides for a Royal Family who are the symbol of our liberties in this democratic country and of the unity of the Commonwealth, and who are a model to the rest of the world.
Due provision should be made for those reasons for what is our own dignity as a nation. The democratic approach of the Royal Family today has evolved in the course of time and has not been forced upon them. They have accepted it readily. There is no reason to suppose that in whatever is required in the interest of the nation our beloved Queen and her Consort will not do all that they can to follow the spirit of the times in which we live.
The monarchy is not the spokesman of any political party. It is true that we

have the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of a new Parliamentary Session, but that Speech is the mouthpiece of the Government duly elected by the people and, therefore, the Speech from the Throne is deemed to be the Speech of the people. We should have due regard to the strength of this institution of the monarchy in this country and in the world, but that is not irreconcilable with according the justice which the Government should accord to the workers in industry in providing them with a decent standard of life. I am very proud to support this Measure. I hope that the House will accept it unanimously in the interest of the country and of our future as a great democratic nation.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. T. Driberg: A number of hon. Members, in the course of the debate, have referred to the growing identification in modern times of the Royal House with the people. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List there are tables which indicate, roughly, how some of the money provided for in this Bill will be spent. One finds some rather interesting illustrations of that process. Although, quite naturally, wages have gone up more than double since 1937 there is one very significant reduction. The item under medical expenditure has been reduced to practically nothing since 1948, presumably because, as we all know, the Royal Family were, I think, actually the first people in this country to decide, very properly, to give a lead to the nation in using the National Health Service.
Several references have been made tonight to the expenditure on purely social functions at court. I agree with some of what has been said by some of my hon. Friends about the snobbery and the rather pathetic ambitions catered for on such occasions. But it is, I think, worth noting that the total sum involved is extremely trivial in relation to the total sum that is being voted tonight. Under the heading "Sundries (including Sandringham and Balmoral expenses, Garden and Presentation parties, flowers, etc.)" the sum in 1951 was only about £12,000 and that compares with about £10,000 in 1937. So there has been extremely little increase over years in which the cost of living generally has gone up substantially.
I agree with some of the criticism made tonight, but I think the difficulties to which exception is taken are not primarily financial, but psychological. I think there is some psychological danger and I think it is unwise psychologically that there should be so much emphasis in the illustrated papers and the so-called glossy weeklies on so-called presentation at court of young girls of a particular social and economic class; but the actual expenditure involved is quite trivial.
I think it is even more true of a constitutional monarchy than of an absolute monarchy that it must represent in its dignity the true full dignity and the wealth of the great nation of which it is the symbolical head. I therefore agree strongly with part of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) when she said that in such a monarchy we cannot expect, and should not expect, that things should be done shabbily or on the cheap when it comes to anything like public ceremonial or pageantry.
Without any disrespect to the ruling houses in any other countries I do not think we want in this country to reduce our Royal Family to what might be called a Scandinavian level and ' have them bicycling round London all the time. I do not think people would like it. Here I think there has been some ambiguity in the use of the word "ceremonial" in various discussions on this Bill and on the Civil List itself. Many of us on this side agree with the criticisms that have been made of court ceremonial in the purely social sense; but I think there are very few of us who want to reduce the public or State ceremonial in the sense of pageantry.
The most important, the outstanding example, of that ceremonial is, of course, the Coronation, to which everybody in this country is looking forward. I hope very much, and indeed we can be quite sure, that there will be no economy, no shabbiness, in the presentation of the great ceremonies associated with that historic occasion or with any aspect of them, in so far as they are covered by the Bill—as, indeed to some extent they must be.
On that point, I might be allowed to come back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. There has been a

good deal of talk tonight and on other occasions at various stages during the debates about the modern democratisation of the Court or of the institution of monarchy and the fact, or the supposed fact, that the Royal House is being more closely identified with the people, of whom it is the symbolic head, but I would point out that, historically, this is merely a reversion to the earliest ideas of monarchy. The removal of the Crown, the Throne, to some remote and aloof place, taking it far out of the reach of the common people, is a late mediaeval and post-mediaeval heresy.
In the earliest times, as the Coronation service itself still reminds us, preserving its essential structure certainly from the eighth century, the Monarch always had to be acclaimed by his people. He had to turn to every corner of the Cathedral Church or the Abbey Church and be acclaimed by his people before he could be regarded as properly a Monarch at all. Any tendency to democratisation which occurs in modern times, therefore, is merely a return to the earlier and perhaps saner concepts of the idea of monarchy. Unless the King is acclaimed and accepted as head and representative of his people, he is not truly a king at all.
Since I have referred to the Coronation service—and undoubtedly some of the expenditure for which provision is made in the Bill will take place at the time of the Coronation—perhaps I may say that I strongly support the suggestions which have been thrown out, in a general connection, by one or two hon. Members tonight that there should be some closer identification of the people of the other countries of the Commonwealth with the Crown, and how warmly, I am sure, most people in this country and throughout the Commonwealth would welcome it if that closer identification could be symbolised in whatever revision is now taking place of the historic Coronation service itself. There may be all sorts of difficulties caused by tradition, by conservatism—with a small "c"—but one cannot help feeling that most hon. Members on both sides of the House and most people throughout the Commonwealth would warmly welcome such innovations as that and the closer knitting together of all the peoples of the Commonwealth which they would symbolise.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think it will be perhaps valuable if I answer some of the points raised in the debate, and then I hope it will be possible to get the Third Reading of the Bill, which we have considered in some detail before. I am not going to indulge in any extras and frills, but merely intend to answer the points simply.
The first main point was covered by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) when he said that the Bill represented what the majority of the Select Committee wanted and also included a great deal of what the minority wanted. That is, I think, the answer to the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) who, I think, was wrong to try to attribute the contents of this Measure, and also certain motives, to the party on this side of the House. I think it is bad both for the Royal Family and for our institutions generally to try to make out that when the House sets up a Select Committee the responsibility falls on one party and that the motives of that party are not right in the circumstances of the time.
The second point which was raised by more than one hon. Gentleman was that if we did the job it should be done properly. That was also raised by the right hon. Gentleman and supported by the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and others. That has been the objective of the Government, and I do not attempt to remove the responsibility from the Government or myself in putting these proposals to the House. That has been the objective of the Government in interpreting, as best we could, the objectives of the Select Committee and enshrining them in the Bill. This means that the job will be done properly.
There is obviously in the House a general feeling that there should be greater simplicity in the ceremonials and in the activities of the Palace. As far as I can interpret the view of the Royal Family that view is shared by the Palace itself. I am in a somewhat embarrassing position. It is not for me to speak for them, but in putting forward these proposals I must be in a position to interpret, as far as is possible, what is likely to happen. I can give no forecast of the future, and it is not my business to do

so, but I know, as far as I can express an opinion, that those hon. Gentleman who are nervous that in the new reign there will be an intensification of elaborate ceremonial which would take the Crown further away from the people, are making a mistake. That is neither the wish, intention, nor the tradition of our present Royal Family. I am quite certain any remarks by hon. Gentlemen made in what I have previously described as a "human spirit" will be read and studied in the quarters to which they are directed.
The question of "debs" came before the Select Committee, and more than one person—and not on one side alone—took the view that there are objections to this sort of activity. I am not particularly interested in "deb" parties, although I am not in the fortunate bachelor position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman may be in 10 years' time.

Mr. Butler: I have a daughter, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and when we were colleagues together he was extremely kind when we worked at the Ministry of Education. My daughter will never forget the right hon. Gentleman's kindness, but that does not mean that she will be keen to go to a "deb" party. I have not discussed the matter with her, but I do not think the future of the monarchy depends on whether we should have "deb" parties or not.
As I was journeying to and from my office this morning I saw some people going to an investiture, and whatever one may think of "deb" parties, I am quite certain that investitures are of great value to the public, to those who are invested, and the whole tradition of the Royal Family. They go deep into the breasts and lives of those involved. I think they are both a dignified and a valuable part of our ceremonial.
That deals as far as I can with the question of simplicity, but into these arguments the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) brought some rather more profound historical research than some other hon. Members did. He said that we are getting back to a more simple and, he thought, mediaeval concept of the monarchy. Whether that he so or not,


I am certain that the British monarchy will never retain its hold on the people if it gets out of touch with the people, and, as far as I know, nobody can accuse the present Sovereign of having, in a very short reign so far, been out of touch with the people of the country. In fact, I have not known of any greater activity exhibited by any one individual than that of Her Majesty so far. I feel certain, again, that the more the monarchy are with the people and share the feelings of the people the more it will be in the interests of the monarchy and their relations with Parliament.
I do not believe that there is anything in the Bill which would make this very desirable objective further removed. In fact, I think that if we can establish the position of the monarchy as the Bill suggests, it will leave them all the freer to practise those traditions, such as have been referred to in the debate, as were carried out in war-time and which, as has been said, endeared them so much to the public.
The last great issue to which I shall refer is that phrase of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock in referring to the monarchy as "great public servants." The hon. Member for Reading. South (Mr. Mikardo) said that he thought that they were more suitable to us and more democratic than a president can be in another country. I feel certain that that is the case. That is part of the point of a constitutional monarchy. Not only can it, and should it, be above politics, but under this umbrella we are able to disagree with each other as much as we like and not feel that any one of us is competing for the highest office of the State in the extremely costly and blatant manner in which it is done in some other countries. I underline the word "costly," because the expenses involved in these tamashas are very much greater than the House is voting today.
Therefore, let us stick to our own institutions, let us trust that they will be interpreted in a simple traditional way, and, as the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) said in an extremely touching speech, let every one of us feel whatever our position be, as hon. Members or even right hon. Members, that when we are in the presence of the monarchy we are of little account even to our own con-

stituents. Perhaps that is just as well because it gives them an occasional change.
I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie would not like a change in a certain direction that we on this side of the House would like, but I am sure she is perfectly right to feel that when a member of the Royal Family comes to her own district there is something which represents history and traditions coming in our midst, and if it can be accompanied with grace and simplicity, I am sure we all bow before it.
There has been a feeling and a fear that a standard of life or social institutions may be established which would create a gulf in between the social standards towards which we all aspire and those which are imagined to be going to be set up under the Bill. I do not believe that that is a reality. After all, a personality and a tradition are more important than anything else, and the personality and tradition of the Royal Family are bound up with that of a family, first of all, their own family—and we are voting money for a household—and secondly, the Imperial family, which has been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and other hon. Members.
It is to the Queen as head of her own household and to the Royal Family as the centre of the Commonwealth and Empire that we wish provision to be made, and that is why we ask for the Third Reading of the Bill.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It would not be fitting for this historic occasion to pass without our offering a sincere tribute from these benches to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way he has handled these debates throughout and for the brilliant and able speech that he has just made, with most of the words of which we would all agree. Indeed, I am sorry that the Leader of the House was not present last night, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid justifiable enconiums to the way hon. Members on this side approached the matter—their constructive approach and helpful suggestions. Had he been present we would not have had the savage outburst which occurred an hour and 14 minutes later.
As the proposals in this Bill represent the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee I am surprised that no Member of the Tory Party has got up to support them.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I did not wish to prolong the debate, although I did rise.

Mr. Hale: I was about to add, before the right hon. and gallant Member rose, that we appreciate that it is not through reluctance to support the proposals that they are not rising, but because they want to spend their Bank holiday Monday at Southend. It is also right to say that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, who is respected on both sides of the House, did rise to his feet, but was then seen in conversation with the Patronage Secretary, and did not move again.
Why is there this reluctance to prolong the debate? Many people feel that a matter of this kind is a great historic occasion, and that it ought to be treated with at least as much solemnity as is accorded to an ordinary Bill dealing with a much smaller expenditure of money; also, that there ought to be no question of curtailment The monarchy has become enshrined in the hearts of the people during the last four generations because of the admirable example of family life and public service which those who have held that high position have set.
All of us would wish to speak of them with profound respect. They cannot reply to criticism; they cannot even speak about these matters. The hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) touched the heart of the House when she said that in the moments of the least pomp and ceremony, in the moments of the fewest trappings, members of the Royal Family came nearest to the hearts of the people.
Last night I made one or two remarks which I thought were important, and as I do not wish detain the House I will only say that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said one thing of great importance, namely, that the monarchy's great value is as head of a great Empire, or Commonwealth of Nations, which includes a republic. It

is right that in moving forward with the times more attention should be paid to the needs of the Empire, and to the very justifiable aspirations of peoples in all parts of the Empire to enter into closer association with the monarchy.
It has been the practice, when one of their late Majesties was Emperor of India, to have as aides-de-camp some of the nobles of the old Indian Empire. Today, we do not see that close association when appointments are made. I want to suggest that it would, perhaps, have been kinder and more generous to the monarchy if we had taken this opportunity to take over the staff and the maintenance of the staff, because it is true that most people do misunderstand these proposals and do not realise that the bulk of this money is to maintain a permanent and large staff with very varied duties. Some of these duties have little to do with the monarchy. Some are concerned with maintaining departments of State, maintaining the fabric of buildings, maintaining a series of ceremonials, and some with duties of a semi-political nature.
We remember days when the Tory Party were opposed to the monarchy, the bitter criticism of the young Queen Victoria over the Bedchamber appointments, and the appointment of staff at the palaces. We have long since left that, but it is still the fact that there are many offices which are virtually hereditary; many offices for appointment to which one of the qualifications is relationship with nobility, the "old school tie," or birth with a silver spoon in one's mouth.
I venture respectfuly to suggest that one of the causes of our worry on this side of the House about these proposals is that the monarchy has to be advised all too customarily by people who are not in close touch with modern events, and, indeed, by people who are very much out of touch. I should have thought that at this moment there should be on the staff an adviser on industrial relations.
I should have thought that at this moment there should have been on the staff someone acquainted with industrial conditions and with the thoughts and views of the workers in industry throughout this country. Certainly, there should be progressive advice by people who understand race relations. I do not want


to hark back to the events of the last few months, but, had there been an adviser on race relations, I think that proposals which were fundamentally I blunder would never have been made.
All of us wish quite sincerely that the young Queen—embarking on these enormous responsibilities to be placed on the head of a young girl who was left fatherless at an early age—will be able to perform those duties in happiness and in comfort and as a member of the happy family to which she belongs.
I shall not tonight refer again to the several proposals to which objection has been made in the course of this debate. After the excellent speech of the Chancellor it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the House and the taste of the House that I should not refer to the specific matters to which I raised objection last night and to the Clauses of the Bill which have been the subject of criticism in the course of the Committee stage both of the Bill and of the original Motion before the House, though certainly there are such matters.
I deplore that we did not take the opportunity of placing a limit of time. I deplore that future Houses are virtually being committed. It is one of the rules of statutory law that no Act of Parliament binds any future Parliament. At the same time, it is obvious that any Parliament would be in great moral difficulty in seeking to vary provisions that have been made with this solemnity and in seeking to vary proposals now embodied in this Bill and which refer to people, some of whom we do not know who they will be—the wife of the Duke of Cornwall, for example, who may have any nationality, who may have any place of residence.
However, I do not want to delay the House. We have taken the view—I certainly have—that the House, having appointed a Select Committee to examine these proposals, having had access to all documents and all sources of information, and having made a profound study of the figures, it is more in accordance with the decency and decorum of the House that we should accept the proposals of the Select Committee even if some of us have mental reservations about them, even if some of us, had we been members of it, might have phrased the proposals in another form.
With these quite brief remarks, therefore, I thank the Chancellor and commend the Bill to the House.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: During the Second Reading of this Bill I said I was a republican. I was called to task by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who advised me to go to the Smoking Room and see what was happening in Chicago. Well, I do not know whether anything that has happened in Chicago—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir. I am only expecting the latitude which has been shown to previous speakers.

Mr. Speaker: There have been no remarks about Chicago in the course of this debate.

Mr. Hughes: No, Sir, but there was a certain continuity in the course of the discussion, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove made a remark when I said that I was a republican. However, I will pass from the right hon. and gallant Member and say one thing to the Chancellor.
I rather detected a reference to republicanism in the United States—a sort of deprecatory reference.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite out of order on the Third Reading of the Bill to refer to that. We have nothing to do with republicanism in the U.S.A.

Mr. Hughes: I was greatly surprised at the Chancellor's reference to the institution in America. I very much regret that the Chancellor should have made that reference, because I believe other countries have institutions which are not so expensive and I do not believe that because we take a certain view of our own institution that we should necessarily be off-hand and assume that the parallel institution in the great Republic of America is anything in any way inferior to our own institution.
There has been a good deal of sentimentalism in this debate and we might as well say what is in our minds. I am


a Socialist and for a Socialist to talk about wanting to perpetuate the monarchy is something which I do not understand. We may be as sentimental as we like about love, but I do not think we should be sentimental about money. In the present sentimental mood of the House the Chancellor is getting away with a good deal and as for accepting with "decency and decorum" the decisions of the Select Committee—as accepted by my hon. Friend for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I should like to consider the Select Committee, how it met and some of its evidence—

Mr. Speaker: We are now long past that stage: we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that we are discussing the Third Reading, Sir, based upon evidence submitted by the Select Committee; and in so far as the Committee produced evidence which we are to consider in making up our minds on the Third Reading, I presume that, in referring to the Committee, I am within the limits of order.

Mr. Speaker: These things must be done in stages. We have had all the previous stages from the Report of the Committee onwards. It seems to me that the hon. Member should have made his speech about a fortnight ago.

Mr. Hughes: You may have omitted, Mr. Speaker, to notice that I made certain similar observations, too. I submit that we are asked to agree to the Third Reading of a Bill in which speaker after speaker has quoted from the proceedings of the Select Committee. I submit that in the Third Reading debate I am in order in referring to the proceedings of this Committee.
I suggest that we should remember that this Select Committee was no Committee in the ordinary sense of the word. This Committee, from the beginning, was a Committee which, it was clearly known, did not have the power to send for papers

and examine witnesses. That was precisely stated, so I suggest that this Committee was far from being—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to pass from that topic: I rule it out of order at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Well, Sir, if it is not in order, on the Third Reading of a Bill, to refer to the guidance of a Select Committee it means that that Select Committee does not seem to have been of much value at all.
All that I wish to say is that the evidence that has been produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not impressed me, and that in this mood of sentimentalising and rhapsodising we are forgetting the essential fact that we are voting away a large sum of public money at a time when there is a very great industrial crisis and when the working people are being asked to economise.
I do not know how any hon. Member can go to the miners or to the shop assistants, or to any of the workers who are being urged by the Chancellor to accept wage cuts, and say, "Yes, we have agreed with this. We are all enthusiastic about it and we have all agreed with all the pious sentimentalising that has been expressed."
I have sat through the whole of the debate and I have not heard a single argument which has changed me from the point of view that from the beginning the Committee was set up according to tradition, precedent and routine to perpetuate an institution which is an expensive institution, an institution which should be superseded by something more democratic. I believe that there are in this country people who, in spite of all the platitudes that have come from both sides of the House, believe that that is the honest view and should be expressed on the Floor of the House at the present time.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT DEPOT, LITTLEBOROUGH (CLOSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: It was only yesterday that we had a debate on the work of the Transport Commission, a debate which covered a very wide field of both road and rail transport. By a coincidence, I have the Adjournment tonight, and I want to draw attention to the way in which the Road Haulage Executive are closing depots of long standing in some parts of the country, without any consideration for the effect which such closure is having on the men concerned.
The men will have to leave their homes and find lodgings or accommodation far removed from their present work, with results that can only be harmful to the road haulage industry of the future, as the men will be lost to the industry and, unless something is done, will never return. Men are now leaving this employment altogether, in these circumstances.
The transport depot to which I refer—at Littleborough—was, under private enterprise, a flourishing concern. It is on the borders of Lancashire and Yorkshire, a few miles inside the County of Lancashire. It is on a direct route from Lancashire to Yorkshire and is in an ideal position for a depot of that sort for haulage between the two counties. About 20 vehicles were employed at the depot, and some 34 men. The relationship with the employers was good, and the conditions were good. Anybody who doubts this has only to hear that there were men who had been with the firm for 30 years, that a number of others had been with them for more than 20 years, and that most of the rest had several years of service.
The vehicles were operated on the Bradford—Liverpool service. A driver had one vehicle, kept to that vehicle, and was responsible for it. He drove to Bradford one day and returned to the depot the same night with a load of textiles for export from Liverpool. He took that vehicle on to Liverpool the next day and, having delivered that load, exchanged it for a load of raw wool which he brought to Littleborough the same night

and carried on with it to Bradford the following day, Bradford being some 21 miles from Littleborough and Liverpool just under 50.
These men were doing a good job in the normal way, economically, reliably and very well. Along comes the Road Haulage Executive and says in effect, "We must concentrate on larger units Oh the ground of efficiency and economy." How often have we heard those words, but how seldom they come true. So, in November last they decided to install on that route a night trunk service consisting of four eight-wheeled vehicles, which, incidentally, meant that five men would do the work of two. This would also mean an increase in man hours of a considerable amount and I am told an increase in expenses of no less than £24 a week in wages alone. These were to do the same number of trips a fortnight as previously were done by private enterprise.
The men opposed this plan, involving the closing of the depot, and it was then arranged by the Executive that a test should take place and that a comparison should be made between the day and night results. This test was to take place for a period of three months from 25th November, a competition between the day drivers and the night drivers and their vehicles to see which worked out the better. That sounded all right, but it did not work out in practice. Three of the four vehicles broke down within the first week, because the vehicles brought in from other districts were overworked.
It is one of the bad features of this trunk service that there is not sufficient time for repairs. The result was that the day vehicles were taken from the men who were trying to justify their retention and used instead of the other vehicles and the day men were relegated for the time being to loading. That could not be said to be a fair test but this difficulty was overcome and the test proceeded. Even so, I am told that a fair test never did take place to show which was the better, the day or night work.
It was said that the day service had carried 20 per cent. less than the night service, but, on the other hand, the day men were sent into Cheshire to pick up loads, going empty from Liverpool, and


these lorries were classed as having run empty, the best loads being kept for the trunk service. It must have been decided from the moment the order was issued, that this depot should be closed, and that nothing should stand in the way of its closure.
Finally, two men volunteered to try this trunk service for three months after much argument. One left within a week. The decision to close was carried out; the lease was given up and the men received a letter from the divisional headquarters, in Bradford, that they must take a job in Bradford or finish. The depot was closed after due notice on 12th July, and the men were offered a travelling allowance for three months from Little-borough to Bradford, or alternatively, £2 a week lodging allowance in Bradford and free removal of their furniture.
That was a quite intolerable position. How can anybody find a house at short notice in a large city today in the present housing shortage? A man going to Bradford for the first time would have to have his name on a waiting list for some time before he would be even considered for a house. Almost the same difficulty arises with lodgings, but most of these men have long service and have lived with their families in their present houses all their working life. To try to find them a house at this stage would be almost impossible. That is why all this is so unfair, and would mean that the men would only seldom get home.
There are only nine men left now, out of the 20 employed soon after the Executive took over. The remainder have left the employment of the Executive and the transport industry. One or two are working for local authorities at the waterworks, others have taken jobs in the mills in the district. They are a loss to the transport industry and in a very short time, if the Executive carries out their apparent intention to stop the day service altogether, the remaining men will also be lost to the industry. That is a serious enough position to warrant my raising the subject on the Adjournment tonight.
A week before the closing took place, however, the remaining men suddenly heard that, after all, arrangements had been made to park these vehicles at Rochdale, three miles away, and for the time

being at any rate, they need not leave the service or go to Bradford. The Executive has arranged, temporarily a place for the parking of their lorries at night in a yard where they are in charge of a watchman. What an amazing thing that is. A perfectly good garage has just been given up and, instead, the lorries are to be left in the open, subject to north country weather, with extremely valuable loads, in most instances, of export textiles on their way to the port.
It really is extraordinary. In winter one feels that there is likely to be deterioration of these goods left in the open with merely tarpaulins over them. It is a situation that causes concern. It could only happen under nationalisation. No private employer would have thought of doing such a thing. I realise that it is done to enable the men to continue to live at home, but why give up the depot?
The men belong to the Transport and General Workers' Union, which has fought hard to keep open this depot. One feels that the same thing is happening in many other parts of the country. I have been taking part in the Adjournment Ballot since 11th June, and I did, therefore, make efforts to raise this matter a good while ago. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for being in his place again this evening, after the long day he had yesterday. This is especially so because the case I have outlined has nothing to do with the Government. It is a question for the Road Haulage Executive, as the whole subject was taken away from Parliament by the Transport Act, but he is going to reply, I understand, therefore, I do not feel he has come here to support the Transport Commission, but he has probably come to tell us something about the case, and I welcome his presence.
I feel that this case alone, if there was no other justification for the Transport Bill which is shortly to come before the House for Second Reading, would amply justify it. The fact is that if we do not once again put our road haulage under private enterprise it seems that we are going to lose hundreds of men permanently and finally from the industry which would, indeed, be a tragedy for the future of British transport.

1.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): It is characteristic of the zeal with which my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) represents his constituents that he should be prepared to sit through a very long Parliamentary day to put before us this case, and may I at once say that it is a very good thing that Ministers should be brought here, whatever the hour of the night, in order that this excellent safety valve might continue to function by which Private Members can bring such matters forward.
As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks, this Adjournment debate flows naturally from our proceedings yesterday, because he has voiced the type of difficulty which was discussed yesterday by many of my hon. Friends when we were debating the Report of the British Transport Commission. My hon. Friend will appreciate—indeed, his closing remarks made it clear that he did—that my reply tonight must be factual, resting upon information supplied to me by the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister has, of course, no power to intervene in the day-to-day administration of that body and under our procedure the Ministry of Transport provide the voice in the House when these matters are raised. The information which I have to give my hon. Friend is, of course, drawn from that source.
I am informed that this depot has been a change-over point since before the days of nationalisation for lorries travelling between Bradford and Liverpool. No significant quantity of traffic was handled there and its main role was to provide facilities for overnight parking and some maintenance. In practice, the district manager was unable to provide adequate supervision there and the standard of maintenance work was not satisfactory.
As the Road Haulage Executive's organisation developed, following its establishment, it became clear in their opinion that, with the introduction of nightly trunk services, the need for the Littleborough depot would disappear and, with this in mind, whenever a Littleborough-based driver left the employment of the British Road Services, he was replaced by a driver living in Brad-

ford. Furthermore—and my hon. Friend referred to this, but my information is slightly different from his—a number of Littleborough-based drivers—he said two, but I am told four; but I do not think we need quarrel about that—volunteered to work from Bradford for a trial period of three months. This was done with the agreement of all the staff at the Littleborough depot.
This trial was duly carried out and, in comparison with the economics of the normal daily run, taking all factors into consideration, the result was overwhelmingly in favour of the nightly trunk service. The district manager then met the men and their representatives and put the facts before them, but he was unable to convince them that his figures were correct. There was a definite difference of view and opinion. They were nevertheless told, as my hon. Friend has informed the House, that after careful consideration the Road Haulage Executive had decided that the depot was no longer necessary and that it would be closed entirely in three months' time, and it was in fact closed on the 12th of this month.
It is believed by the Executive that the local drivers will come to accept this decision. That, I think, is a matter of opinion. The men and their representatives were assured that there would be no redundancy as a result of this closure and that all would be offered jobs at other depots. This assurance has been implemented and, further, as a special concession to men living in Littleborough, it has been arranged, in conjunction with the North-Western Division, that men returning from Liverpool to Bradford in the evening can park their lorries, as the hon. Member has told us, at the Rochdale depot for the night, thereby enabling the Littleborough men to get home by 'bus. The distance from Rochdale to Little-borough, I am informed, is some 3½ miles.
I am in a little difficulty in my closing remarks, because I feel that there is a ray of hope in this matter. It is not entirely a dark scene; there is a rift in the clouds, but I have to walk carefully because of the time-honoured rule about discussing legislation on these occasions. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I am hopeful that these men will not be lost to the industry and that my hon. Friends prognostications will not be fulfilled.
I think it is known in some quarters that there is in contemplation a reorganisation of the road transport system of the country, and that the type of organisation which my hon. Friend now deplores will largely disappear. I hope that his constituents who feel a sense of grievance will rapidly obtain employment in private enterprise, regain their happi-

ness, lose their sense of grievance, and once again function in this great industry which is of such major importance to this country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-One Minutes past One o'Clock a.m.